Key Term Indefinite In Hydraulic Fracturing Patent Case

In a claim construction opinion that explained conclusions he summarized in a brief order earlier this month, the judge found that the term "high pressure," which is used in every claim of three of the patents and in some claims of two patents, is not sufficiently clear.

Pillsbury Intellectual Property partner Brian Nash,  an attorney for co-defendant Cimarex Energy Co., said the ruling appears to be one of the first by Judge Albright, who handles nearly a quarter of all U.S. patent cases, finding a term of degree — in this case "high pressure" — to be indefinite.

"We think it's the right conclusion, because the specification provided no guidance about what would constitute 'high pressure' or not," Nash said. "This significantly narrows the scope of the case."

The ruling is a blow to the infringement contentions made by U.S. Well Services in the case, which began in April when the company accused Halliburton and Cimarex of infringement. Halliburton counterclaimed in June.

U.S. Well Services' patents describe electric pumps used to pressurize hydraulic fracturing fluid, and state that they are configured to pump fluid at "high pressure." Judge Albright agreed with the defendants’ argument that it is not clear what that term means.

In addition to Nash, Cimarex is represented by Austin Schnell and Steven Tepera.