|
One of the great
mysteries of patents is trying to figure out what they
mean. This is true for a great many legal documents.
With patents, it's puzzling because they come packed
with information. But even experts become challenged
when interpreting patents.
The
story involves two companies, Ferguson Beauregard and
Mega Systems, both in Tyler, Texas, jockeying for a
part of the market in oil well production technology.
Ferguson Beauregard sued Mega for patent infringement.
Not only are the companies intra-town rivals, Ferguson
Beauregard sued a principal of Mega. Ferguson Beauregard
apparently wanted to make it personal.
The
particular technology involved producing oil to the
surface. When wells are initially drilled, there may
be enough natural pressure to force the oil up to the
surface. Hollywood movies dramatically depict these
high pressure wells as gushers that spew oil out the
top of the drilling rig. That kind of thing rarely happens
now, due to environmental and safety laws.
When
a well produces for some time, it loses much of its
natural ability to force the oil to the surface. Lift
systems are then employed to move the oil up to the
surface. One type of lift system suited for wells that
produce lots of natural gas involves the use of a plunger.
As shown by the patent drawing, the plunger 22 forms
a barrier between a slug of liquid oil on top and the
gas below. As the gas pressure builds, the plunger rises,
lifting the slug of oil to the surface. The oil, then
the gas, is released through a pipe 42, where it goes
into storage tanks, pipeline, etc. for commercial use.
Because of the release, the plunger 22 sinks back down
to the bottom to repeat the process.
Those
who operate wells like to control the amount of oil
and gas produced by the well. If the well produces too
fast, then it acts like a stubborn mule, getting tired
and producing less and less. For that reason, the well
is periodically rested or shut in. This process of producing
a little, shutting in, producing some more, shutting
in, etc. is known as intermitting because the lift system
acts intermittently.
Both
companies make controllers for intermitting wells. Controllers
are in charge of how long the well is shut in and how
long it produces. One of the Ferguson Beauregard patents
optimizes the production of oil. The box shown as 50
in the drawing is the controller. The controller receives
some information, processes it and determines when to
produce the well. This particular controller knows the
pressure 60 from the sales line 58 and when the plunger
arrives at the surface 64. The controller opens a valve
48 to produce the well in a such a way that makes the
plunger cycle within a window of time. Because the plunger
cycle can be controlled, production is optimized.
Once
you figure it out, the technology is not terribly complicated.
What is apparently complicated is figuring out what
the patent legally protects. That involves interpreting
patent claims. Akin to the metes and bounds in a property
description of real estate, claims define the boundaries
of the patent right conferred by the government.
What
caused trouble in the Ferguson Beauregard patent had
to do with “normal” plunger performance. Mega argued,
among other things, that its controller did not have
“normal” plunger performance because an operator programmed
the performance. In other words, the ability to vary
the plunger's cycle made it abnormal. The judge was
convinced and found no infringement.
The
judge used a neutral expert known as a special master.
Special masters are typically patent attorneys and can
be helpful, particularly when the judge is faced with
diametrically opposing interpretations from the litigants.
Actually, this judge used two experts, one to interpret
the claims and another to determine if infringement
existed.
Ferguson
Beauregard appealed. The appellate court also uses experts,
only these are on staff. The higher court disagreed
with the lower court, saying “normal” means standard
regardless of whether an operator can define what constitutes
standard operation.
The
case returns to the lower court to refigure infringement.
In the meantime, Mega is hedging its bet; it has petitioned
the experts in the Patent Office to revoke Ferguson
Beauregard's patent.
Originally Published in the Fort Worth
Businss Press |
