PTAB

IPR2025-00661

Liberty Energy Inc v. US Well Services LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Electric Powered Hydraulic Fracturing Pump System With Single Electric Powered Multi-plunger Fracturing Pump
  • Brief Description: The ’863 patent discloses systems and methods for compact modular trailer arrangements for electric-powered multi-plunger hydraulic fracturing pumps. The system utilizes a support structure with two adjacent areas at different heights, one for the pump and motor, and another for a variable frequency drive (VFD) and transformer housed within an enclosure.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Fischer - Claims 1 and 9 are obvious over Fischer.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Fischer (Patent 10,988,998).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Fischer, which describes an electrically-driven hydraulic fracturing system on a pump trailer, discloses all limitations of claim 1. Fischer’s trailer was asserted to be a "support structure" with two adjacent areas at different heights: a lower "first area" for an electric motor and a multi-plunger pump, and an elevated "second area" for an enclosed VFD and an integrated transformer. Petitioner contended that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would understand from Fischer’s figures and description that its five-plunger pump is an "odd number" multi-plunger pump and that its VFD controls the motor’s speed. For claim 9, Petitioner asserted Fischer shows the first and second areas on opposite ends of the trailer and that the trailer includes a hitch in the second area for coupling to a semi-truck prime mover.
    • Key Aspects: This ground asserted that Fischer alone renders the core independent claims obvious, forming the foundation for numerous other combination-based grounds.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Fischer and Oehring-I - Claim 2 is obvious over Fischer in view of Oehring-I.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Fischer (Patent 10,988,998) and Oehring-I (Application # 2017/0030177).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued Oehring-I remedies a deficiency in Fischer by teaching the "slide out platform" limitation of claim 2. Oehring-I discloses a platform assembly on a fracturing trailer that is selectively movable between a stowed position and a deployed position to provide a work area giving personnel access to the pump. Petitioner contended that combining Oehring-I's movable platform with Fischer’s trailer-mounted pump would result in the claimed system.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Fischer and Oehring-I for design incentives and to apply a known technique to a similar device. Petitioner argued that since maintenance of trailer-mounted pumps can be frequent and hazardous, a POSITA implementing Fischer’s system would be motivated to incorporate Oehring-I’s movable platform to provide safer and more reliable access to the pump.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination was argued to be a predictable integration of a known retractable platform onto a similar pump trailer to provide operator access, yielding no unexpected results.

Ground 4: Obviousness over Fischer and Orban - Claims 4 and 5 are obvious over Fischer in view of Orban.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Fischer (Patent 10,988,998) and Orban (International Publication No. WO 2018/201118).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Orban teaches the "liquid cooling system" limitation of claim 4. Orban discloses a VFD with a water-based radiator system to cool its heat-generating IGBT components. Petitioner argued a POSITA would incorporate Orban’s cooling system into the enclosure of Fischer, thereby cooling the VFD and, by extension, the enclosure itself. For claim 5, Petitioner noted that Orban explicitly discloses using water as the cooling liquid.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine the references due to design incentives. Petitioner argued that a POSITA would understand the importance of managing heat to avoid VFD overheating and would have sought a known solution like Orban’s water-based radiator when implementing Fischer’s VFD.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted success would be expected because applying a known water-based cooling system to cool a VFD is a predictable combination to improve thermal management.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted numerous additional obviousness challenges. These included a parallel set of grounds asserting claims 1-8 and 10-20 are obvious over Morris (Application # 2020/0040878) alone or in combination with the same secondary references (Oehring-I, Oehring-II, Orban, Karassik). Further grounds combined Fischer or Morris with Karassik (a pump handbook) to argue obviousness of claims reciting specific numbers of plungers (e.g., septuplex or nonuplex pumps).

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under both §314(a) and §325(d).
  • §314(a) (Fintiv): Petitioner asserted denial is not warranted because the ’863 patent, while initially part of a co-pending district court case, was dropped from that litigation via an Amended Complaint. Therefore, no duplicative efforts between the Board and the district court would occur.
  • §325(d) (Advanced Bionics): Petitioner argued that although Fischer and Oehring-I were before the examiner during prosecution, the examiner committed a material error of law by withdrawing Fischer as a prior art reference. The withdrawal was based on the patent owner’s argument that Fischer was not entitled to its provisional filing date under the Dynamic Drinkware standard. Petitioner asserted that recent PTAB precedent (Penumbra) clarified that the Dynamic Drinkware requirement does not apply to AIA patents like Fischer, and therefore the examiner’s decision was improper and resulted in the claims not being fully considered on their merits.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of inter partes review (IPR) and cancellation of claims 1-20 of the ’863 patent as unpatentable.