- Weatherford U.S., L.P v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 9, 2025 · IPR2024-00990 · APJ Brent M Dougal · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 11–12 and 14–20 are unpatentable; claims 1–10 and 21–23 are not shown unpatentable. Substitute claims 29–37 are unpatentable, and the motion to amend is denied as to them.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The level of skill is uncontested. Patent Owner adopts the level of skill identified by Petitioner as: [at] the time of the alleged invention in 2018, a POSITA[2] would have had a B.S. degree in mechanical or petroleum engineering or a similar technical discipline, with at least five years of experience in oil or gas well drilling, completion, and/or subsurface production operations or in technical support of such operations including at least some experience in unconsolidated formations utilizing sand control methods and means. Also,” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“on embodiments of Yeh with concentric sand screens having nine shunt tubes (six transport tubes and three packing tubes) (Yeh Figures 4A–B) and eccentric sand screens with four shunt tubes (two transport tubes and two packing tubes) (Yeh Figures 8A, 8C). See Pet. 32–37, 39, 41–43. Yet, Petitioner’s reasoning as to why “a higher-pressure shunt tube assembly necessitated greater wall thickness” rests on an unspoken one to one comparison between the shunt tubes of the different systems. See id.; see also Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 291–297 (Petitioner’s declarant comparing possible transport tubes of different pressure regions without considering or addressing any difference in the number of transport tubes). However, the embodiments relied on by Petitioner have different numbers of shunt tubes, and thus the greater wall thickness does not appear to be “necessitated” in the way inferred by Petitioner. Further, Petitioner’s analysis would seem to be most appropriate when comparing two concentric sand screens for different pressure regions, or two eccentric sand screens for different pressure regions. relies on Yeh’s teachings related to a horizontal well bore of 5000 feet for the “concentric screen → crossover tool → eccentric screen” arrangement, as well as, for why the concentric screen needs to be rated for a high pressure. Pet. 32–37, 39, 41–43. Petitioner also refers to these features for why one of skill in the art would combine the teachings of Yeh and Yeh2. Id. at 32. However, on cross-examination, Petitioner’s declarant agreed that it is concentric sand screens having a 6x3 shunt tube design that would provide the noted benefits of being rated for a higher pressure and being more robust (as relied on in the Petition), as compared to eccentric sand screens. Ex. 2013, 42:20–43:8; Sur-reply 4–5. This also exposes another issue with Petitioner’s arguments. Though Petitioner identifies that one of skill in the art would be aware that material choice, wall thickness, and pipe diameter all impact burst pressure of a pipe (Pet. 42 (citing Ex. 1017, 24 (Equation (14))), the Petition essentially ignores the fact that the claims do not require a single pipe in isolation. The claims require two shunt tube assemblies, each surrounding a base pipe within a wellbore. It is uncontested that a wellbore provides a confined space for such a system and thus any change in wall thickness of one pipe can result in a significant impact in the function of the other pipes. We find the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant (see, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 290–297) unpersuasive when discussing wall thickness because it focusses on basic considerations of a standalone pipe, without sufficient consideration of the claimed completion assembly with its required pipe and tube structure. PO Resp. 20–26.” slip op. at 17
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“In response to Patent Owner’s argument concerning Yeh’s embodiments relied on in the Petition, Petitioner argues for the first time that Patent Owner’s declarant “conceded, Yeh discloses that both concentric and 47:19–48:21). Petitioner does not provide a citation to Yeh or a citation to where the Petition relies on the same number of shunt tubes between concentric and eccentric screens. The deposition cited by Petitioner discusses Yeh at column 16, lines 26 through 35. However, the Petition does not cite or rely on these teachings of Yeh. Thus, we decline to consider this late argument.4 See 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring the petition to identify “with particularity . . . the grounds on which the challenge to each claim is based, and the evidence that supports the grounds”); 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5).” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable
“Thus, we agree with Petitioner that the combination of Yeh and Yeh2 teaches determining the shunt tube system operating pressures associated with the distal end of the production zone, but also more generally, determining the operating pressures along the entire production zone. With this knowledge of the system operating pressures, Petitioner argues that one of skill in the art would have selected eccentric screens for the distal end of the production zone “at any point at which the slurry pressure dropped below the pressure capacity of the eccentric screen shunt tubes.” Pet. 66 (citing Ex. 1005, 30:16–20; Ex. 1003 ¶ 388). In other words, knowing that the pressure decreases as you approach the toe, Yeh’s low-pressure rated eccentric screens could be used from some point prior to and covering the toe. determined pressure.” PO Resp. 37–38. We disagree. As discussed above, the record supports Petitioner’s position that one of skill in the art would have “understood the need to determine the shunt tube system operating pressure throughout the horizontal wellbore.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 383; see also Pet. 64–65. We find convincing Petitioner’s argument that one of skill with this understanding of the system pressures would select a shunt tube system rated to not only address the distal end, but also to address the needs of the adjacent region, so long as the pressure rating supported such a selection. See Pet. 65–67; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 385–388.” slip op. at 22
Patent outcomesUS 11,333,007 mixedClaim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,333,007 - Cambridge Associates, LLC v. Capital DynamicsAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 31, 2015 · CBM2014-00079 · APJ Donna M Praiss · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 1–17 are unpatentable under § 101 because they claim an abstract mathematical correlation implemented with generic computer functions.
RulingsFinal written decision- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable
“We agree with Petitioner that Digitech is instructive guidance concerning claims to “a process that employs mathematical algorithms to manipulate existing information to generate additional information.” Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1351 (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. at 595) (concluding such claims are ineligible subject matter). Like the ’196 patent claims, the process claim in Digitech did not recite expressly mathematical formulae or equations. It claimed, in prose, generating two data sets by taking existing information, such as measured chromatic stimuli, spatial stimuli, and device response characteristic functions, and organizing the information into a new form called a device profile. Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1350–51. The method claim was determined to be an abstract idea “because it describes a process of organizing information through mathematical correlations and is not tied to a specific structure or machine.” Id. at 1350. The absence of expressly recited mathematical formulae or equations in the claim carried no significance in determining whether the claims as a whole were directed to the abstract idea. See also Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2356–57 (noting that no special significance was given to the fact that one of the claims in Bilski reduced hedging to a mathematical formula). In sum, because we agree with Petitioner that the challenged claims involve determining a mathematical correlation, like the claims in Digitech, we conclude that the first step in the Alice/Mayo test is met for claims 1–17.” slip op. at 12
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptUnpatentable
“The fact that a claim relies on a method that is implemented on a computer does not, by itself, demonstrate that the claim is patent eligible. Rather, a challenged claim, properly construed, must incorporate enough meaningful limitations to ensure that what is claimed is more than just an abstract idea, and is not a mere “drafting effort designed to monopolize [an abstract idea] itself.” Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1297. In order for a machine to impose a meaningful limitation on the scope of a method claim, it must play “a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly.” SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 601 F.3d 1319, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Claims that recite a method of doing business on a computer, and do no more than merely recite the use of the computer for its ordinary function of performing repetitive calculations, are not patent eligible. Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co., 687 F.3d 1266, 1278–79 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (finding computer used for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculation, does not impose a meaningful claim limitation). We are persuaded that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the extent to which a computer aids the performance of the claimed invention is no more than the ordinary function of common computer software programs, such as the Microsoft Excel spreadsheet used by Patent Owner’s expert. Reply 7 (citing Ex. 1012, 153:15–154:21). Patent Owner’s argument that the computer technology required by the ’196 patent claims “is integral to meeting the requirements of accuracy, precision and timeliness” (PO Resp. 27 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶ 96)) focuses on a specific commercial application of the patent claims “[i]n the private equity world” (id. (citing Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 86–95)). We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments because they presume particular mathematical computation methods not required by the claims, and reinforce that the nature of the invention is a patent ineligible mathematical algorithm. For example, Patent Owner contends that when presented with a problem to solve at his deposition, Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Robinson, inaccurately computed a real rate of return on an investment because he used quarterly compounding rather than daily compounding. Ex. 2004 ¶ 87. According to Mr. Reyes, Patent Owner’s expert, “daily cashflow (as opposed to monthly or quarterly) has been recognized as a requisite compounding frequency as far back as the 1960s.” Id. at ¶ 91. Such mathematical computations, even if required by the claims, are not sufficient to transform the claims into patent eligible subject matter.” slip op. at 15
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“For the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–17 of the ’196 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Because our determination does not rely on the deposition testimony subject to Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude, we dismiss the motion as moot.” slip op. at 2
- Expert testimonyOther
“We are persuaded that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the extent to which a computer aids the performance of the claimed invention is no more than the ordinary function of common computer software programs, such as the Microsoft Excel spreadsheet used by Patent Owner’s expert. Reply 7 (citing Ex. 1012, 153:15–154:21). Patent Owner’s argument that the computer technology required by the ’196 patent claims “is integral to meeting the requirements of accuracy, precision and timeliness” (PO Resp. 27 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶ 96)) focuses on a specific commercial application of the patent claims “[i]n the private equity world” (id. (citing Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 86–95)). We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments because they presume particular mathematical computation methods not required by the claims, and reinforce that the nature of the invention is a patent ineligible mathematical algorithm. For example, Patent Owner contends that when presented with a problem to solve at his deposition, Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Robinson, inaccurately computed a real rate of return on an investment because he used quarterly compounding rather than daily compounding. Ex. 2004 ¶ 87. According to Mr. Reyes, Patent Owner’s expert, “daily cashflow (as opposed to monthly or quarterly) has been recognized as a requisite compounding frequency as far back as the 1960s.” Id. at ¶ 91. Such mathematical computations, even if required by the claims, are not sufficient to transform the claims into patent eligible subject matter.” slip op. at 16
Patent outcomesUS 7,698,196 unpatentable§ 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Mayo · BilskiPatents in suitUS 7,698,196
Holdings, summaries, rulings, issues, outcomes, winners and claim constructions shown for a decision were generated by a large language model reading the opinion. They are a guide to the decision, not the decision. Confirm every one against the court's own text before relying on it. Outcomes read from the patent owner’s side. Party names are extracted from the decision and are missing on about 900 short Director denials and scans, which carry the trial number instead.