Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01494/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01494-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Churchill Drilling Tools US, Inc.
Appellee
Schoeller-Bleckmann Oilfield Equipment AG
Appellant

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

SCHOELLER-BLECKMANN OILFIELD 

EQUIPMENT AG,

Appellant

v.

CHURCHILL DRILLING TOOLS US, INC.,

Appellee

______________________ 

2016-1494

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2014-

00814.

______________________ 

Decided: November 9, 2016

______________________ 

DAVID A. DILLARD, Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie 

LLP, Glendale, CA, for appellant. Also represented by 

GREGORY S. LAMPERT. 

J. DAVID CABELLO, Blank Rome LLP, Houston, TX, for 

appellee. Also represented by JAMES H. HALL, STEPHEN D.

ZINDA. 

______________________ 

Case: 16-1494 Document: 53-2 Page: 1 Filed: 11/09/2016
 SCHOELLER-BLECKMANN OILFIELD v. CHURCHILL DRILLING 

TOOLS US

2

Before TARANTO, LINN, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

LINN, Circuit Judge.

Schoeller-Bleckmann Oilfield Equipment AG 

(“Schoeller”) appeals from a decision in an inter partes 

review (“IPR”) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) 

holding invalid as anticipated and obvious claims 13-15, 

17, and 18 of Schoeller’s U.S. Patent No. 7,866,397 (“’397 

patent”). Churchill Drilling Tools US, Inc. v. SchoellerBleckmann Oilfield Equip. AG, IPR2014-00814 (P.T.A.B. 

Oct. 9, 2015) (“Op.”). Because we see no reason to disturb 

the claim construction of “ball-like portion,” we affirm the 

Board’s decision of unpatentability of claims 17 and 18.

BACKGROUND1

The ’397 patent is directed to a mechanism for allowing and restricting the flow of liquid through a drill string

to activate and deactivate a downhole tool. 

The ’397 patent includes several relevant embodiments of its invention. The first, shown in Figures 1-5 

uses a ball activator, which is dropped down the drill 

string to land on a seat, which, in turn, restricts the flow 

of fluid, and builds pressure above the seated ball. The 

pressure builds until it is sufficient to slide the entire 

sleeve down, exposing side ports to allow a flow of fluid. 

This embodiment does not allow a return to the default 

flow state.

Another embodiment uses “a deformable activator in 

the form of [a] ball-dart combination, which takes the 

place of the large non-deformable ball 14.” ’397 patent, 

col. 8, ll. 59-61. Figures 8 and 9 show such a deformable 

1 Because we write for the parties, familiarity with 

the facts of the case is presumed. 

 

Case: 16-1494 Document: 53-2 Page: 2 Filed: 11/09/2016
SCHOELLER-BLECKMANN OILFIELD v. CHURCHILL DRILLING 

TOOLS US

3

activator, which can be “launched down the drill string to 

engage a seat provided in the axially shiftable sleeve.” 

Id., col. 6, ll. 34-40. This activator has “a ball-like portion 

51 which engages the seat 13, and a dart-like portion 52

projecting downwardly therefrom.” Id., col. 8, ll. 64-65. 

This mechanism may be deactivated by launching a set of 

small non-deformable balls, which block the flow control 

device, increasing pressure, which “eventually causes 

downward movement (accompanied by sufficient inward 

deformation of actuator 50) through the seat 13 and the 

sleeve 12.” Id., col.9, ll. 36-38.

A further embodiment is pictured in Figures 9a and 

9b, which show deformable activators 50a and 50b. To 

activate the bypass mode, a non-deformable ball blocks 

the passageway through the center of the activator and 

the slideable sleeve slides down the drill string to align 

the bypass ports. To deactivate the bypass mechanism, 

deactivating balls are launched, which further increases 

pressure by blocking the bypass ports, until the pressure 

deforms “the deformable portion 51 of the activator 

[which] then yields under this load, thereby allowing the 

entire activator to pass downwardly through the valve 

seat.” Id., col.10, ll. 19-21. 

On May 23, 2014, Churchill filed a petition for IPR. 

The Board instituted review as to claims 13-15, 17, and 

18, as (1) anticipated by prior art WO 02/14650 A1, 

PCT/GB01/03492 (published Feb. 21, 2002) (“WO 

02/14650”); (2) anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 4,310,050 

(“Bourgoyne”); and (3) obvious over a combination of both.

After claim construction, the Board issued a final 

written decision, holding claims 13-15, 17, and 18 unpatentable on all three grounds.

We have jurisdiction over an appeal from a final 

decision in an IPR under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A) and 

35 U.S.C. § 319. 

Case: 16-1494 Document: 53-2 Page: 3 Filed: 11/09/2016
 SCHOELLER-BLECKMANN OILFIELD v. CHURCHILL DRILLING 

TOOLS US

4

DISCUSSION

Schoeller contests the Board’s claim construction2 of 

“ball-like portion” and contends that under a proper 

construction of that term, claims 17 and 18 are neither 

anticipated nor obvious.3 Schoeller’s anticipation and 

obviousness challenges regarding claims 17 and 18 are 

dependent on its construction of the term “ball-like portion.” 

We review the Board’s ultimate claim construction de 

novo as an issue of law, and review any factual determinations underlying its claim construction and based on 

extrinsic evidence for substantial evidence. In re Cuozzo 

Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1279–80 (Fed. Cir. 

2015) (citing Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 

S. Ct. 831, 841 (2015)), aff’d, Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. 

Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016). 

Claim 17 depends from claim 13, and reads as follows, 

with the limitations from claim 13 included in braces and 

the terms at issue emphasized: 

17. {An activating mechanism for controlling the 

operation of a downhole tool and which comprises:

2 Schoeller initially argued that the broadest reasonable interpretation standard was not the proper 

standard for claim construction in an IPR, but the Supreme Court has now definitively approved that standard, 

Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2142 

(2016). 

3 Schoeller does not appeal the Board’s construction 

of “‘deformable activator’ in claim 13” or its “decision 

cancelling claims 13-15.” Appellant’s Br. 1 n.1. Schoeller 

does appeal the Board’s construction of “deformable” with 

regard to claims 17 and 18, but for the reasons discussed 

below, we need not, and do not, address that issue. 

 

Case: 16-1494 Document: 53-2 Page: 4 Filed: 11/09/2016
SCHOELLER-BLECKMANN OILFIELD v. CHURCHILL DRILLING 

TOOLS US

5

a hollow main body adapted for mounting in a 

drill-string and through which fluid to the tool 

can be routed;

an actuating sleeve defining a through-flow 

passage and slidably mounted in the main 

body for movement between positions corresponding to a through-flow mode and a bypass mode of the mechanism;

biasing means acting on the sleeve to urge it 

to its position corresponding to the throughflow mode of the mechanism;

a seat providing access to said passage in the 

through-flow mode of the mechanism; and 

a deformable activator capable of being 

launched down the drill-string to engage the 

seat and thereby cause pressure upstream of 

the seat to increase so that the activator 

moves the sleeve to its position corresponding 

to the by-pass mode of the mechanism; 

in which the activator and the seat are arranged to co-operate with each other, when 

the activator engages the seat, in such a way 

that restricted flow of fluid through the sleeve 

is maintained when the mechanism is in its 

by-pass mode;}

[and] in which the deformable activator 

comprises a ball-dart combination, in 

which a ball-like portion at least is deformable and is capable of seating on said 

seat, and a dart-like portion is capable of projecting downwardly through the seat.

’397 patent, col. 15, ll. 22-44; id., col. 16, ll. 1-5. Claim 18 

adds that “the activator is hollow and is provided with an 

Case: 16-1494 Document: 53-2 Page: 5 Filed: 11/09/2016
 SCHOELLER-BLECKMANN OILFIELD v. CHURCHILL DRILLING 

TOOLS US

6

internal flow control device.” Id., col. 16, ll. 6-8. Claims 

17 and 18 are not argued separately on appeal.

The first disputed issue is whether the Board properly 

construed “ball-like portion” in Claim 17 as “a structure 

with at least one outer curve.” More concretely, the issue 

is whether “ball-like portion” is limited to the “deformable 

ring” 51 shown in Figures 8, 9, 9(a), and 9(b), or whether 

it also encompasses a deformable ball. 

Schoeller argues that the ’397 patent exclusively uses 

“ball-like” portion to refer to the deformable ring of the 

ball-dart combination shown in Figures 8, 9, 9(a), and 

9(b), and that when referring to an actual ball as used in 

the embodiments shown in Figures 1-5, the specification 

uniformly uses some variation of the term “ball.” 

Schoeller particularly points to the following passages: 

FIG. 3b shows initiation of adjustment of the tool 

to its activated mode, which is caused by launching activating ball 14 from the surface and down 

the drill string, to engage seat 13. 

. . . .

FIGS. 8 and 9 are longitudinal sectional views of a 

deformable activator in the form of a ball-dart 

combination, which takes the place of the large 

non-deformable ball 14 described above. There is 

therefore shown in FIGS. 8 and 9 a deformable activator which is designated generally by reference 

50 having a ball-like portion 51 which engages the 

seat 13, and a dart-like portion 52 projecting 

downwardly therefrom. The ball-like portion 51

engages the seat 13, and the dart-like projection 

52 projects downwardly therefrom and through 

the seat.

’397 patent, col. 8, ll. 1-4; id., col. 8, l. 59 through col. 9, l. 

1 (emphasis added). Schoeller does not explain, however,

why the passage noted above with respect to Figures 8 

Case: 16-1494 Document: 53-2 Page: 6 Filed: 11/09/2016
SCHOELLER-BLECKMANN OILFIELD v. CHURCHILL DRILLING 

TOOLS US

7

and 9 is limiting. There is no doubt that the deformable 

ring 51 shown in Figures 8, 9, 9(a), and 9(b) is “ball-like,” 

but this does not necessarily indicate that “ball-like” is 

thereby limited to a deformable ring. We have repeatedly 

stated that it is inappropriate to construe claim terms as 

limited to preferred embodiments without a clear intent 

to redefine the term or a clear disavowal of claim scope. 

See, e.g., Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 

F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012).

Relying on In re Abbott Diabetes Care, 696 F.3d 1142 

(Fed. Cir. 2012), Schoeller argues that the ’397 patent 

manifests an implicit definition of “ball-like” as excluding 

a ball, and including only a ring that interacts in a particular way with the dart-like portion, namely by “forming 

a seal at the outer circumference of the cylindrical dart.” 

Appellant’s Br. 32. Schoeller argues that claim 17 requires a particular interaction between a “ball-like portion” and a “dart-like portion,” and that because those 

terms are only used in reference to the components in 

Figures 8, 9, 9(a), and 9(b), the claim must cover only that 

particular interaction between the elements. 

Schoeller reads Abbott too broadly. In Abbott, the 

claims themselves suggested the exclusion of wires from 

the “electrochemical sensor” and the only discussion of 

wires in the specification of the patents at issue was to 

disparage their use in the prior art. Abbott, 696 F.3d at 

1149. As we stated, “Abbott’s patents ‘repeatedly, consistently, and exclusively’ depict[ed] an electrochemical 

sensor without external cables or wires while simultaneously disparaging sensors with external cables or wires.” 

Id. at 1150 (quoting Irdeto Access, Inc. v. Echostar Satellite Corp., 383 F.3d 1295, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). The 

same is not true of the instant ’397 patent, which does not 

disparage the use of a deformable ball as a “ball-like” 

portion. 

Case: 16-1494 Document: 53-2 Page: 7 Filed: 11/09/2016
 SCHOELLER-BLECKMANN OILFIELD v. CHURCHILL DRILLING 

TOOLS US

8

Similarly, in claiming the interaction between the 

“ball-like” and the “dart-like” portions of the deformable 

activator, claim 17 requires only that the “ball-like portion at least is deformable and is capable of seating on 

said seat,” and the “dart-like portion is capable of projecting downwardly through the seat.” ’397 patent, col. 16, ll. 

3-5. The claim does not require or imply that the “balllike” portion form a seal on the outer circumference of the 

dart.

Moreover, the ’397 patent itself appears to allow a ball 

as a species of the “ball-like portion”:

Preferably, the deformable activator comprises a 

ball-dart combination, in which a ball-like portion at least is deformable and is capable of seating on the seat, and a dart-like portion can project 

downwardly through the seat. A ball-dart combination can readily be launched down a drill string, 

and with suitable weighting of the combination, 

the dart can pull the ball downwardly, under 

gravity, and with the dart eventually projecting 

downwardly through the seat and the “ball” engaging the seat.

’397 patent, col. 5, ll. 44-53 (emphasis added). Schoeller 

attempts to parse the two sentences above as referring to 

two different embodiments, relying on the use of the 

indefinite article “a” instead of the definite article “the” in 

the second sentence. This argument is inapposite—both 

sentences are referring to the “deformable activator,” and 

that portion of the specification is talking about generalities and not particular embodiments. Schoeller also 

argues that because the second mention of the word “ball” 

is in quotes, this means that “ball” is referring to the 

genus that includes both “actual balls” and “ball likeportions.” We find this argument unconvincing, as it fails 

to account for the first use of “the ball,” and is contrary to 

Case: 16-1494 Document: 53-2 Page: 8 Filed: 11/09/2016
SCHOELLER-BLECKMANN OILFIELD v. CHURCHILL DRILLING 

TOOLS US

9

the natural reading of “ball-like portion” as the genus of 

both a ball and a ring.

We also note that the ’397 patent repeatedly uses the 

phrase “ring” or “deformable ring” to refer specifically to 

element 51 in Figures 8, 9, 9(a), and 9(b). See ’397 patent,

col. 10, ll. 23-25 (“The deformable activators 50, 50a, 50b

disclosed herein effectively are a form of deformable dart, 

and having an external resilient ring . . . .”); id., col. 10, ll. 

27-28 (“[T]he deformable ring can shear under load . . . .”); 

id., col. 10, ll. 30-31 (“The ring therefore forms a seal on 

the outer circumference of the dart . . . .”). If the patentee 

had wanted to limit the scope of claim 17 to those embodiments, the patentee had a narrow term readily available 

from the specification. 

For these reasons, we affirm the Board’s construction 

of “ball-like portion” under the broadest reasonable construction standard as a “structure with at least one outer 

curve.” 

Schoeller does not contest on appeal that claims 17 

and 18 are anticipated by WO 02/14650 under the construction affirmed above. The Board’s decision of unpatentability of claims 17 and 18 is therefore affirmed on 

that basis. We need not and do not address the Board’s 

conclusions that Bourgoyne also anticipated claims 17 

and 18, or that the combination of WO 02/14650 and 

Bourgoyne rendered obvious claims 17 and 18. Finally, 

we do not address the Board’s construction of “deformable,” which relates only to the Bourgoyne anticipation 

issue we do not reach.

AFFIRMED

Case: 16-1494 Document: 53-2 Page: 9 Filed: 11/09/2016