Gryphon Oilfield Solutions, LLC v. Stage Completions Inc. et al

Filing 138

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION (Signed by Judge Nancy F Atlas) Parties notified.(sashabranner, 4)

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
GRYPHON OILFIELD SOLUTIONS, §
LLC,
§
Plaintiff,
§
§
v.
§
§
STAGE COMPLETIONS INC., et al., §
Defendants.
§

November 27, 2018
David J. Bradley, Clerk

CIVIL ACTION NO. H-17-3220

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
This patent case is before the Court for construction of the disputed claim terms
in United States Patent No. 9,611,727 (“the ’727 Patent”), entitled “Apparatus and
Method for Fracturing a Well” (the “Patent-in-Suit”). Plaintiff Gryphon Oilfield
Solutions, LLC (“Gryphon”) is the current owner of the Patent-in-Suit. Gryphon
alleges that Defendants Stage Completions Inc. and Stage Completions (USA) Corp.
(collectively, “Stage”) are infringing claims 1, 2, and 7 of the ’727 Patent.
The Court conducted a hearing pursuant to Markman v. Westview Instruments,
Inc., 517 U.S. 370 (1996) (“Markman hearing”), on October 30, 2018. Based on the
evidence before the Court, the arguments presented by counsel, and the governing
legal authorities, the Court issues this Memorandum and Order construing those
disputed claim terms that require construction.

P:\ORDERS\11-2017\3220Markman.wpd

181127.1342

I.

BACKGROUND
Gryphon is the current owner by assignment of the ’727 Patent. The ’727

Patent covers a system and method for fracturing hydrocarbon formations utilizing
sliding frac sleeves. Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is a process used in the oil and
gas industry to increase the well production rate and the ultimate recovery of oil or gas
from the well. See Gryphon’s Written Tutorial [Doc. # 102], p. 2. The fracking
process involves fracturing hydrocarbon formations by pumping fluids downhole and
into the formation at high pressure. See id. This creates cracks, or fractures, in the
formation to allow access to the oil and gas. See id.
Unlike earlier devices that used graduated ball seats that could receive a ball
dropped downhole to create a seal in the wellbore, the device covered by the ’727
Patent “is actuated via a key profile on the sliding sleeve that corresponds to a profile
on a dart that is inserted and moved downhole with pressurized fracturing fluid.” See
id. at 7. The device described in the ’727 Patent uses darts with dart profiles
extending radially outward that mate with key profiles on the piston of the frac sleeve.
See Gryphon’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Doc. # 10], p. 4 (citing ’727 Patent,
6:61-64, 7:40-8:2). A dart travels downhole until its dart profile reaches the matching
key profile, whereupon it latches into the respective piston. See Stage Written
Tutorial [Doc. # 98], p. 7. The dart cup forms a seal within the valve, creating

P:\ORDERS\11-2017\3220Markman.wpd

181127.1342

2

hydraulic pressure to move the piston to the open position, thereby allowing fracturing
fluid to be released into the hydrocarbon formation to allow fracking. See id.
Gryphon filed this lawsuit, alleging that Defendants’ Bowhead II system
infringes Claims 1, 2, and 7 of the ’727 Patent. Stage denies infringement.1
Claim 1 recites:
1. A method for fracturing a well in a formation, the method
comprising the steps of:
a)

b)

placing the apparatus in a cased string disposed in the well, the
apparatus located near a production zone in the formation;

c)

placing a dart into the casing string, the dart having a dart profile
disposed thereon, wherein the dart profile matches the key profile
on only one of the at least two valves; and

d)

1

providing an apparatus having at least two valves, each valve
having a key profile disposed thereon, wherein the key profile of
each of the at least two valves is different from the key profile of
the other of the at least two valves and a piston that is slidable
between an open position and a closed position;

injecting pressurized fracturing fluid into the casing string
wherein the fracturing fluid moves the dart through the casing
string into the apparatus until it reaches one of the at least two
valves with the key profile disposed on an interior sidewall of a
tubular piston disposed within the apparatus, to place a downward
force on the piston to move the piston from the closed position to
an the open position wherein the fracturing fluid can pass through
at least one port of the apparatus to fracture the formation.

Defendants also challenge the validity of the ’727 Patent.

P:\ORDERS\11-2017\3220Markman.wpd

181127.1342

3

’727 Patent, Claim 1, at 9:20-45.
Claim 2 of the ’727 Patent recites:
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the dart further comprises at
least one dart cup uphole of the dart profile, configured to seal off
communication through the piston when the dart profile has engaged the
corresponding key profile.
’727 Patent, Claim 2, at 9:46-10:3.
Claim 7 of the ’727 Patent recites:
7. A system of valves and at least one dart for use downhole in a
well, the system comprising:
at least two valves, each valve comprising:
a)

a tubular valve body comprising upper and lower ends defining
communication therebetween, the valve body further comprising
at least one port extending through a sidewall thereof nearer the
upper end;

b)

a tubular piston slidably disposed in the valve body and
configured to provide communication therethrough, the piston
closing the at least one port in a closed position, the piston
opening the at least one port in an open position;

c)

a key profile disposed on an interior sidewall of the piston and
comprising at least two grooves and a locking shoulder, the key
profile for moving the piston from the closed position to the open
position when a downward force is placed on the piston; and

d)

a tubular end cap disposed on the lower end of the valve body, the
end cap configured to stop the piston when the piston moves from
the closed position to the open position;

P:\ORDERS\11-2017\3220Markman.wpd

181127.1342

4

where the key profiles of the at least two valves have the locking
shoulders in different locations relative to the two grooves within
their key profile, and
the at least one dart comprising a longitudinal shaft comprising upper
and lower ends, the lower end comprising a dart profile, the dart
profile configured to engage grooves and locking shoulder of a
matching key profile, the upper end comprising at least one dart
cup configured to seal off communication through the piston when
the dart profile has engage the corresponding key profile,
where the location of the two grooves and locking shoulder in the dart
profile is configured to specifically bypass unmatching key
profiles and specifically engage the key profile of a targeted valve.
’727 Patent, Claim 7, at 10:12-46.
Prior to the Markman hearing, Gryphon and Stage each filed a Written Tutorial
[Docs. # 102 and # 98]. The parties filed a Joint Claim Construction Chart [Doc.
# 101] and a Final Claim Construction Chart [Doc. # 118]. Gryphon filed its Claim
Construction Brief [Doc. # 112], Stage filed its Responsive Claim Construction Brief
[Doc. # 115], and Gryphon filed its Reply Brief [Doc. # 116]. The Court conducted
a Markman hearing, after which the parties submitted Supplemental Briefs [Docs.
# 134 and # 133]. With leave of Court, Gryphon filed a second supplemental brief
[Doc. # 137]. The Court now issues its claim construction ruling.
II.

GENERAL LEGAL STANDARDS FOR CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
“It is a bedrock principle of patent law that the claims of a patent define the

invention to which the patentee is entitled the right to exclude.” Aventis Pharm., Inc.
P:\ORDERS\11-2017\3220Markman.wpd

181127.1342

5

v. Amino Chems. Ltd., 715 F.3d 1363, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (quoting Phillips v. AWH
Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)). The patent claims in issue
must be construed as a matter of law to determine their scope and meaning. See, e.g.,
Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 390 (1996), aff’g, 52 F.3d 967,
976 (Fed. Cir.) (en banc); Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Vonage Holdings Corp., 503 F.3d
1295, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
“There is a heavy presumption that claim terms are to be given their ordinary
and customary meaning.” Aventis, 715 F.3d at 1373 (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at
1312-13; Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)).
Therefore, Courts must “look to the words of the claims themselves . . . to define the
scope of the patented invention.” Id. (citations omitted); see also Summit 6, LLC v.
Samsung Elec. Co., Ltd., 802 F.3d 1283, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The “ordinary and
customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have to a
person of ordinary skill in the art2 in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of
the effective filing date of the patent application.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313; see also
2

Gryphon has presented evidence, and Stage does not appear to contest, that the
relevant “person of ordinary skill in the art” in this case “would have a bachelor’s
degree in petroleum or mechanical engineering, or an equivalent degree, and at least
three years’ experience in drilling and completions of oil wells, including education
and experience in fracture stimulations. The years of experience necessary may
increase or decrease depending upon levels of education above or below a bachelor’s
degree.” See Declaration of Dr. Gary R. Wooley, Exh. 2 to Gryphon’s Claim
Construction Brief, ¶ 20.

P:\ORDERS\11-2017\3220Markman.wpd

181127.1342

6

ICU Med., Inc. v. Alaris Med. Sys., Inc., 558 F.3d 1368, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2009). This
“person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read the claim term not only in the
context of the particular claim in which the disputed term appears, but in the context
of the entire patent, including the specification.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313; ICU, 558
F.3d at 1374.
Intrinsic evidence is the primary resource for claim construction. See PowerOne, Inc. v. Artesyn Techs., Inc., 599 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citing
Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312). For certain claim terms, “the ordinary meaning of claim
language as understood by a person of skill in the art may be readily apparent even to
lay judges, and claim construction in such cases involves little more than the
application of the widely accepted meaning of commonly understood words.”
Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. For other claim terms, however, the meaning of the claim
language may be less apparent. To construe those terms, the Court considers “those
sources available to the public that show what a person of skill in the art would have
understood disputed claim language to mean . . . [including] the words of the claims
themselves, the remainder of the specification, the prosecution history, and extrinsic
evidence concerning relevant scientific principles, the meaning of technical terms, and
the state of the art.” Id.

P:\ORDERS\11-2017\3220Markman.wpd

181127.1342

7

The claims “provide substantial guidance as to the meaning of particular claim
terms.” Id. The Court may consider the context in which the terms are used and the
differences among the claims. See id. “Because claim terms are normally used
consistently throughout the patent, the usage of a term in one claim can often
illuminate the meaning of the same term in other claims.” Id. Because the claims “are
part of a fully integrated written instrument,” the Court may also consider the
specification and the patent’s prosecution history. Id. at 1315, 1317. When the claims
use separate terms, “each term is presumed to have a distinct meaning.” Primos, Inc.
v. Hunter’s Specialties, Inc., 451 F.3d 841, 847 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
III.

CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED CLAIM TERMS
A.

“Dart”

The parties agree that the claim term “dart” is a device that is dropped or
pumped downhole to activate downhole equipment. Gryphon is in agreement that the
claim term properly includes the limitation of an “elongated body.” See Gryphon
Supp. Brief, p. 8. Stage prefers “elongated shaft” instead of “elongated body,” and
argues that the claim term should be construed to include the additional limitation of
a “guide nose.” See Stage Supp. Brief, p. 2.
The Court agrees with the parties that the term “dart” must include a limitation
that distinguishes the shape of the dart in the ’727 Patent from a ball, and notes the

P:\ORDERS\11-2017\3220Markman.wpd

181127.1342

8

parties’ agreement with use of the term “elongated” to describe the dart’s shape. The
Court, therefore, construes the claim term “dart” in the ’727 Patent to mean “a device
having an elongated shape that is dropped or pumped downhole to activate downhole
equipment.” The “elongated shape” limitations adequately distinguishes the “dart”
in the ’727 Patent from a ball, which would not be a “dart” for purposes of the Patentin-Suit.
The Court does not, however, adopt Stage’s proposal for the additional
limitation of a “guide nose.” The term “guide nose” lacks clarity.3
B.

“Key Profile” and “Dart Profile”

The method covered by Claim 1 and the system covered by Claim 7 of the ’727
Patent include at least two valves, each valve having a “key profile.”4 The method
covered by Claim 1 and the system covered by Claim 7 of the ’727 Patent also include

3

It appears from the evidence in the record that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would understand a dart to have at least one end that is smaller than the body of the
dart. See ’727 Patent, Figs. 1 and 13; see also U.S. Patent No. 2011/0240311 A1
(“Robison”) (Exh. 19 to Gryphon’s Opening Claim Construction Brief), Fig. 2D.
This does not demonstrate, however, that this smaller end would constitute a “guide
nose” or that the smaller end is a limitation in the ’727 Patent.

4

See Claim 1 (“A method for fracturing a well in a formation, the method comprising
the steps of (a) providing an apparatus having at least two valves, each valve having
a key profile disposed thereon”); Claim 7 (“A system . . . comprising: at least two
valves . . . where the key profiles of the at least two valves . . ..”).

P:\ORDERS\11-2017\3220Markman.wpd

181127.1342

9

a “dart profile” on the dart.5 When the dart moves downhole, its dart profile matches
with only one corresponding key profile.
Stage’s proposed construction of these terms is focused on the one-to-one
matching relationship between the dart profile and the corresponding key profile. See
Stage Responsive Claim Construction Brief [Doc. # 115], pp. 8-10. Although Stage
is correct that the ’727 Patent requires elsewhere that the dart profile match only one
key profile,6 that limitation is not part of the construction of the terms “dart profile”
and “key profile.”
Gryphon’s proposed construction focuses, instead, on the shape of the profiles.
See Gryphon Claim Construction Brief [Doc. # 112], p. 8. Gryphon’s proposed
limitation requiring that the key profile and the dart profile have a “particular shape
or pattern,” however, is overly broad and too general to construe the terms adequately.
The ’727 Patent describes the “key profile” as having at least two “grooves” into
which the dart profile is “configured to engage.” See ’727 Patent, 10:37-39.

5

See Claim 1 (“placing a dart into the casing string, the dart having a dart profile
disposed thereon”); Claim 7 (“the at least one dart comprising a longitudinal shaft
comprising upper and lower ends, the lower end comprising a dart profile”).

6

See ’727 Patent, Claim 1, ¶ (c); Claim 7, second unnumbered paragraph after
limitation (d) (“the at least one dart comprising a longitudinal shaft comprising upper
and lower ends, the lower end comprising a dart profile, the dart profile configured
to engage grooves and locking shoulder of a matching key profile, the upper end
comprising at least one dart cup configured to seal off communication through the
piston when the dart profile has engage the corresponding key profile”).

P:\ORDERS\11-2017\3220Markman.wpd

181127.1342

10

Therefore, the Court construes the term “key profile” to mean “a specific pattern of
indentations on the interior surface of the valve” and construes the term “dart profile”
to mean “a specific pattern of protrusions on the exterior surface of the dart.”
C.

“Wherein the Dart Profile Matches the Key Profile on Only One of
the at Least Two Valves”

Gryphon agrees with a proposed construction of this claim term to mean
“wherein the dart profile interlocks with a complementary key profile within only one
targeted valve.” See Gryphon Supp. Brief, p. 2. Stage agrees generally, but proposes
substituting “matching” for “complementary” and removing the word “targeted” from
the construction. See Stage Supp. Brief, p. 3.
The Court construes this claim term to mean “wherein the dart profile interlocks
with a single, complementary key profile within only one corresponding valve.” The
phrase “single, complementary key profile” adequately conveys the concept that the
dart profile matches a key profile, without using the same word that is used in the
claim term being construed. The Court rejects Gryphon’s proposed use of the word
“targeted” because it could improperly impose an intent limitation that is not
supported by the intrinsic evidence.
D.

“The Fracturing Fluid Moves the Dart Through the Casing String”

The parties’ dispute focuses on the construction of “fracturing fluid” as used in
Claim 1 of the ’727 Patent. Gryphon asserts that the term is one that is readily
P:\ORDERS\11-2017\3220Markman.wpd

181127.1342

11

understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art. See Gryphon Claim Construction
Brief, p. 19. Before and at the Markman hearing, Stage argued that the term
“fracturing fluid” is understood in the industry, and should be construed by the Court,
to require that the fluid be either an acid or a fluid that carries a proppant material such
as sand or microscopic beads. See Stage Responsive Claim Construction Brief, p. 17.
Stage suggested during the Markman hearing that this claim term should be construed
to require that the fracturing fluid be at a certain pressure. This limitation was not
included in Stage’s proposed construction of this claim term. The Court also rejects
this suggestion because the pressure requirement is contained elsewhere in Claim 1
at 9:35 (“injecting pressurized fracturing fluid”).
The Court has carefully considered the parties’ pre-hearing briefing and
arguments during the Markman hearing. The Court concludes that the term does not
require special construction and is given its ordinary and customary meaning as
understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art.
E.

“Dart Cup . . . Configured to Seal Off Communication Through the
Piston When the Dart Profile Has Engaged the Corresponding Key
Profile”

“Dart Cup”/Cup-Shaped.– The parties dispute whether the “dart cup” must
be cup-shaped. Gryphon proposes that the “dart cup” be construed simply as “an

P:\ORDERS\11-2017\3220Markman.wpd

181127.1342

12

exterior seal.” Stage proposes that the claim term be construed to mean “a seal with
depressed center and raised sealing lips.”
A “dart cup” is understood in the oil and gas industry to be a “cup seal.” See
Declaration of David J. Speller, Exh. A to Stage’s Responsive Claim Construction
Brief [Doc. # 115-1], p. 17. A cup seal is named for its shape. See id. at 16.
Gryphon’s proposed construction improperly removes the word “cup” from the
claim term. Gryphon’s expert, Dr. Gary R. Wooley, opines that “regardless of the
shape, the dart cup must seal against the piston.” See Wooley Declaration, Exh. 2 to
Gryphon Claim Construction Brief, p. 39. The ’727 Patent states that dart cups “can
be circular in configuration, when viewed from the top, or of any other configuration
such that darts cups 44 can substantially contact the interior surface of piston 20 when
pressurized fracturing fluid is injected into the well.” See ’747 Patent, 5:50-54. The
’727 Patent states further that in certain embodiments, the dart cups “can comprise any
other shape that are configured to function equivalently to seal against piston 20.” See
’747 Patent, 8:11-13.
Gryphon argues correctly that the patentee is entitled to act as its own
lexicographer to provide a definition of a term different from its usual and customary
meaning. The standard for lexicography, however, is exacting. See Luminara
Worldwide, LLC v. Liown Elec. Co. Ltd., 814 F.3d 1343, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016);

P:\ORDERS\11-2017\3220Markman.wpd

181127.1342

13

Barkan Wireless Access Tech., L.P. v. Cellco P’ship, __ F. App’x __, 2018 WL
4151281, *2 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 29, 2018). To act as its own lexicographer, the patentee
must “clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term” and “clearly express
an intent to redefine the term.” See id. (quoting Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am.
LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). The language in the ’727 Patent fails to
satisfy this exacting standard. The language on which Gryphon relies does not
“clearly set forth” a substitute definition for “dart cup” or “cup seal” that eliminates
the limitation of a cup shape. Moreover, the language does not “clearly express an
intent to redefine the term.” Instead, the language states generally that the dart cups
can have a circular shape, specifically when viewed from the top, and in certain
embodiments can have any other shape. This does not clearly express an intent to
alter the ordinary and customary meaning of “dart cup” or “cup seal” as cup-shaped,
and does not clearly set forth a new definition for the claim term. As a result,
Gryphon’s reliance on lexicography is unavailing and the ordinary and customary
meaning of “dart cup” as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art is unaltered.
Seals In Only One Direction.– The parties also dispute whether the seal
created by the dart cup is designed to contain high pressure in one direction but not
in the other. Gryphon has presented Dr. Wooley’s opinion that the language of the
’727 Patent does not require that the dart cup contain high pressure in one direction

P:\ORDERS\11-2017\3220Markman.wpd

181127.1342

14

only. See Wooley Declaration, p. 39. Stage has presented persuasive evidence,
however, that a dart cup, or cup seal, is designed to contain high pressure in one
direction but not in the other. See Speller Declaration, p. 17. A person of ordinary
skill in the art would understand that a high pressure seal is created when pressure is
applied upstream of the dart cup because the sides of the cup will flare out to create
the high pressure seal. See id. at 18. When pressure is applied in the other direction,
i.e., from below the cup, the cup will collapse and the high pressure seal cannot form.
See id. Therefore, the Court agrees that the dart cup is configured to seal off high
pressure in one direction but not in the other.
Court’s Construction of Claim Term.– Based on the foregoing, the Court
construes the claim term “dart cup . . . configured to seal off communication through
the piston when the dart profile has engaged the corresponding key profile” to mean
“a cup-shaped seal designed to contain high pressure in one direction but not in the
other and that blocks fluid flow through the piston when the dart profile engages the
key profile.”

P:\ORDERS\11-2017\3220Markman.wpd

181127.1342

15

F.

“Where the Key Profiles of the at Least Two Valves Have the
Locking Shoulders in Different Locations Relative to the Two
Grooves Within their Key Profile”

Gryphon proposes that this claim term be construed to mean “the key profiles
of the at least two valves differ from one another in that the distances7 between the
locking shoulder and one of the end points of the two grooves changes between the
key profiles of the valves.” See Joint Claim Construction Chart [Doc. # 118], p. 7.
Stage’s current proposed construction is that “in each key profile of the at least two
valves, the locking shoulder is in a different location and moves in relation to the two
grooves; the locking shoulder is separate from the two grooves in at least one of the
two key profiles.” See Stage’s Supplemental Claim Construction Brief, p. 8 n.7. The
parties’ disagreement focuses on whether the locking shoulder of one or both key
profiles can be located in a groove.
During prosecution of what issued as the ’727 Patent, the patent examiner
rejected proposed claim 1 (which did not issue) and claim 14 (which issued as Claim
7 of the ’727 Patent). The patent examiner explained that the proposed limitation that
the key profile had “at least two grooves and a locking shoulder” was present in prior

7

The Court disagrees with Gryphon’s proposed use of the term “distances” as
unsupported by the intrinsic evidence. The claim term refers to the different
“location” of the locking shoulder relative to the at least two grooves, and does not
require any particular relative distances.

P:\ORDERS\11-2017\3220Markman.wpd

181127.1342

16

art, specifically that Robison8 also included “at least two grooves and a locking
shoulder.” See Office Action Summary, Exh. 20 to Gryphon’s Claim Construction
Brief, p. 18. With reference to claim 14 (which issued as Claim 7), the language was
amended to the existing language which reads “where the key profiles of the at least
two valves have the locking shoulders in different locations relative to the two
grooves within their key profile.” With reference to proposed claim 1 (which did not
issue), the language was amended to read that the key profile comprised “at least two
grooves and a locking shoulder spaced apart from the two grooves.” See Amendment
& Response, Exh. 8 to Gryphon’s Claim Construction Brief, p. 3, p. 5 (referencing
Figs. 15A through 15D). The differing proposed amendment language strongly
suggests that the “spaced apart from the two grooves” language proposed for claim
1 was not considered applicable to claim 14 (which issued as Claim 7). See Applied
Med. Resources Corp. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 448 F.3d 1324, 1333 n.3 (Fed. Cir.
2006). Figs. 15A through 15C, cited in the Amendment & Response and included in
the ’727 Patent as issued, show the locking shoulder 56 in one of the grooves of the
key profile 55.
The ’727 Patent and its prosecution history indicate that the locking shoulder
of one key profile of the at least two valves can be located within one of the key

8

U.S. Patent No. 2011/0240311 A1.

P:\ORDERS\11-2017\3220Markman.wpd

181127.1342

17

profile’s two grooves. Assuming for illustrative purposes that there are two valves,
each with a key profile containing two grooves, there is nothing in the patent or its
prosecution that precludes the locking shoulder of one or both of the key profiles from
being located in one of the two grooves, provided that the locking shoulders in the two
key profiles are in different locations relative to the two grooves in each key profile.
For example, the locking shoulder in one key profile could be located in one of the
two grooves (“Groove A”) and the locking shoulder in the second key profile could
be located in the other of the two grooves (“Groove B”).
Therefore, the Court construes the claim term “where the key profiles of the at
least two valves have the locking shoulders in different locations relative to the two
grooves within their key profile” to mean “the key profiles of the at least two valves
have the locking shoulders in different locations relative to the two grooves within the
valves’ key profiles; the locking shoulder can be located within one of the two
grooves.”
G.

“Configured to Specifically Bypass Unmatching Key Profiles and
Specifically Engage the Key Profile of a Targeted Valve”

Gryphon agrees with a proposed construction of this claim term to mean
“configured to specifically bypass unmatching key profiles and specifically engage
the corresponding key profile of the targeted valve.” See Gryphon Supp. Brief, pp. 45. Stage proposes that this claim term be construed to mean “configured to engage
P:\ORDERS\11-2017\3220Markman.wpd

181127.1342

18

only one valve having the matching key profile and bypass unmatching key profiles.”
See Stage Supp. Brief, p. 4. Although the two proposals are very similar, the Court
construes the claim term as agreed by Gryphon. The construction relies primarily on
the ordinary and customary meaning of the language in the claim term, while adding
the word “corresponding” to convey that the intrinsic evidence requires one dart
profile that matches or corresponds to one key profile.
IV.

CONCLUSION
The Court has considered the intrinsic evidence in the record, as well as limited

extrinsic evidence as cited herein. The Court also has considered the parties’ oral
arguments and explanations during the Markman hearing, as well as the supplemental
briefing, all of which the Court found very helpful and informative. Based on this
consideration of the evidence and the parties’ arguments, as well as the application of
governing claim construction principles, the Court construes the disputed terms in the
Patent-in-Suit as set forth above and in the chart below.

Claim Term

Court’s Construction

Dart

A device having an elongated shape that is
dropped or pumped downhole to activate
downhole equipment

Key Profile

A specific pattern of indentations on the
interior surface of the valve

P:\ORDERS\11-2017\3220Markman.wpd

181127.1342

19

Dart Profile

A specific pattern of protrusions on the
exterior surface of the dart

Wherein the Dart Profile Matches
the Key Profile on Only One of
the at Least Two Valves

Wherein the dart profile interlocks with a
single, complementary key profile within
only one corresponding valve

The Fracturing Fluid Moves the
Dart Through the Casing String

Ordinary and customary meaning as
understood by a person of ordinary skill in
the art

Dart Cup . . . Configured to Seal
Off Communication Through the
Piston When the Dart Profile Has
Engaged the Corresponding Key
Profile

A cup-shaped seal designed to contain high
pressure in one direction but not in the other
and that blocks fluid flow through the
piston when the dart profile engages the key
profile

Where the Key Profiles of the at
Least Two Valves Have the
Locking Shoulders in Different
Locations Relative to the Two
Grooves Within their Key Profile

The key profiles of the at least two valves
have the locking shoulders in different
locations relative to the two grooves within
the valves’ key profiles; the locking
shoulder can be located within one of the
two grooves

Configured to Specifically Bypass
Unmatching Key Profiles and
Specifically Engage the Key
Profile of a Targeted Valve

Configured to specifically bypass
unmatching key profiles and to specifically
engage the corresponding key profile of the
targeted valve

It is SO ORDERED.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, this 27th day of November, 2018.

NAN Y F. ATLAS
SENIOR UNI
STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
P:\ORDERS\11-2017\3220Markman.wpd

181127.1342

20