Patent Claims Directed to Oil-and-Gas Drilling Systems Upheld as Patent Eligible

January 9, 2024

Reading Time : 4 min

A court in the District of Colorado recently denied dismissal of patent infringement claims, holding that the asserted claims directed to plunger lift systems for cultivating natural gas from an oil-and-gas well are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The court held that the method claims did not recite an abstract idea because the claims are directed to an intended result, and they concretely identify the physical structures or steps that provide the specific means of accomplishing the result.

Well Master Corp. v. Flowco Production Solutions, LLC, No. 21-cv-2145 (D. Colo.).

Patent owner Well Master sued Flowco for infringing three patents. Flowco moved to dismiss two of the patents for patent ineligibility under § 101—U.S. Patent Nos. 7,395,865 and 7,793,728. The court found that the asserted independent claims were representative of the dependent claims because Well Master took no position on representativeness. The patents are directed to plunger lift systems or “plungers.” A plunger is a cylindrical device placed inside the chamber or “tubing” of an oil-and-gas well for cultivating natural gas.

The court analyzed eligibility using the Supreme Court’s two-step Alice framework. In step one, the court determines whether the claims, in their entirety, are “directed to a patent-ineligible concept,” such as an abstract idea. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217 (2014). If they are, the court proceeds to step two—the search for an “inventive concept”—and considers “the elements of each claim both individually and ‘as an ordered combination’ to determine whether the additional elements ‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Id. (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Lab’ys, Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 78-79 (2012)).

Representative claims 7 and 12 of the ʼ865 patent recite a method of controlling fluid flow in a tubing string in a plunger lift system, including a plunger with fins, a bore and side holes extending from the bore to the side walls. Claim 7 states that the fins create turbulence within the tubing string and the method recites rotating the plunger. The claim does not expressly recite a causal relationship between the fins and the rotation, but the court noted that the specification states that the rotation is caused by the combined interaction of the fins, bore, and side holes. Claim 12 recites the same subject matter, except it attributes turbulence to the side-hole-and-bore combination rather than the fins.

Addressing Alice step one, the court quoted from ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc., 920 F.3d 759 (Fed. Cir. 2019), to emphasize that this step considers the “focus of the claimed advance over the prior art to determine if the claim’s character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter.” The court found that claims 7 and 12 are not directed to an abstract idea (i.e., “rotation”) alone, and instead are directed to the generation of turbulence. The court relied on the specification, which explains that rotation occurs to due the fins, bore, and side walls. The court noted that, like the claimed features in McRo, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America, Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2015), these features (the fins, bore and side walls) provide the means that improves the relevant technology. The court also relied on the claim preambles, which specify the intended result—“controlling fluid flow in a tubing string.”

The patent owner argued that the claims are directed to “rotation” because the prior art eliminates other elements such that rotation is all that remains. The court determined, however, that reducing the claims to rotation would be improperly “oversimplify[ing] key inventive concepts [and] downplay[ing] an invention’s benefits.” The court distinguished American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings, LLC, 967 F.3d 1285 (Fed. Cir. 2020), in which the claims invoked “a natural law, and nothing more, to achieve a claimed result.” In contrast, the court found that the claims of the ʼ865 patent are “directed to generating turbulence” and “concretely identify the physical structures—the gas holes and fins—that provide the specific means of accomplishing that result.”

The court also addressed a third representative claim—claim 16, which described a method of cleaning the well tubing string while generating turbulence. Following a similar analysis as before, the court found that the claim recited the “physical structure or steps” necessary to accomplish cleaning, i.e.: “(1) carve fins with sharpened edges into the plunger base, core the plunger by adding a bore, and drill holes through the side walls that reach the bore; (2) allow the plunger to rotate; and (3) allow the rotating plunger’s fins to scrape along the tubing string.” The court again rejected patent owner’s attempt to dissect the claim limitations using citations to prior art.

The court determined that the claims of the ʼ728 patent are identical to their counterparts in the ʼ865 patent, and thus, those claims are not directed to an abstract idea for the same reasons. Because none of the asserted claims are directed to an abstract idea, the court found no reason to consider Alice step two.

Practice Tip: Patent owners should avoid claiming a result and instead claim a specific means for achieving the result. If the preamble recites an intended result, patent owners should confirm that the body of the claim recites a specific means for accomplishing that result. When claiming industrial processes, the body of the claim should concretely identify the physical structures or steps that provide the means for accomplishing an intended result. When claims are challenged, patent owners should also insist on consideration of the focus of the claimed advance over the prior art to determine if the claim’s character, as a whole, is directed to excluded subject matter and avoid oversimplifying key inventive concepts or downplaying an invention’s benefits.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

August 5, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently vacated a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board after concluding that the board’s analysis of licensing evidence offered as a secondary consideration of nonobviousness constituted legal error and was not supported by substantial evidence. According to the court, the board applied a more exacting and improperly heightened nexus standard than is required by law for license evidence.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 5, 2025

A Northern District of California judge recently granted a motion to reconsider his summary judgment ruling that defendant was barred from raising certain “device art” due to IPR estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). In the original ruling, the judge adopted the broader rule that IPR estoppel applies to device art that is “materially identical” to patents or printed publications that petitioners raised, or could have raised, in an IPR. Following that ruling, however, the Federal Circuit issued its Ingenico decision adopting the narrower view that IPR estoppel applies only to “grounds” based on patents and printed publications and not to device-based grounds. Citing Ingenico as a “change of law,” defendant moved for reconsideration of the court’s ruling, and the court granted the motion.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 5, 2025

In a recent decision designated as Informative, the USPTO Director determined that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board abused its discretion by instituting two inter partes review proceedings challenging the same patent, based on petitions advancing different constructions of the same claim term. The Director expressed concerns that permitting multiple petitions based on alternative claim constructions effectively circumvents word count limitations, strains board resources, and undermines procedural efficiency.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

July 25, 2025

Earlier this year, the Federal Circuit’s decision in Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc. (Qualcomm II) raised questions about the extent to which petitioners can rely on applicant admitted prior art (“AAPA”) in inter partes review proceedings.  The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Shockwave Medical, Inc. v. Cardiovascular Sys., Inc. largely cabins the Qualcomm II decision to its particular facts and makes clear that AAPA can be used as evidence of background knowledge as part of an obviousness argument.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

July 11, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently reversed a PTAB determination on remand that a patent was obvious over applicant admitted prior art (“AAPA”) in combination with prior art patents, holding that expressly designating AAPA as a “basis” for a ground is improper under 35 U.S.C. § 311(b). In doing so, the Court rejected the PTAB’s “blanket rule” that “AAPA used in combination with prior art patents or printed publications under § 311(b) is ipso facto not the basis or part of the basis of a ground.” Ultimately, while the case clarifies that expressly listing AAPA in an IPR ground is improper, the precise line between proper and improper uses of AAPA in other instances remains unclear.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

July 1, 2025

In an appeal from an inter partes review, the Federal Circuit recently clarified that the enablement inquiry applied to prior art references in the context of an anticipation defense differs from the enablement inquiry applied when evaluating the claims of a patent.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

June 26, 2025

The Northern District of Ohio denied a motion to compel the plaintiff to produce test results referenced in its initial disclosures and complaint. The court found that because the “test results are not facts but rather are opinions,” the information was protected as work product. Furthermore, because that testing would not be used as evidence in the litigation, the defendant was not prejudiced.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

June 6, 2025

In a precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit definitively held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board has jurisdiction over IPRs that concern expired patents.

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.