EXHIBIT A 

Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 34-1 Filed 08/26/20 Page 1 of 64
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

WACO DIVISION 

CAMERON INTERNATIONAL 

CORPORATION, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

BUTCH’S RATHOLE & ANCHOR 

SERVICE, INC., 

Defendant. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-00124 

JURY TRIAL REQUESTED 

 

PLAINTIFF CAMERON INTERNATIONAL CORP.’S 

OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF 

Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 34-1 Filed 08/26/20 Page 2 of 64 Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 27 Filed 07/15/20 Page 1 of 25
 i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

I. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1

II. Background and Asserted Patents ....................................................................................... 2

A. Fracturing Manifolds .............................................................................................. 3

B. Fracturing Trees ...................................................................................................... 4

C. Fluid Conduits ......................................................................................................... 5

1. Prior-art frac iron—multiple fluid pathways .............................................. 6

2. Cameron’s single fluid conduit—one and only one fluid pathway ............ 8

a. ’132 Patent ...................................................................................... 9

b. ’645 Patent ...................................................................................... 9

III. Legal Standards ................................................................................................................. 14

A. Claim Construction ............................................................................................... 14

B. Indefiniteness ........................................................................................................ 15

IV. Claim Terms...................................................................................................................... 16

A. ’132 Patent: “positioned at” .................................................................................. 17

B. ’645 Patent: “pipe joints” ...................................................................................... 18

V. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 19

Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 34-1 Filed 08/26/20 Page 3 of 64 Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 27 Filed 07/15/20 Page 2 of 25
 ii 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 

 Page(s) 

Cases 

3M Innovative Props. Co. v. Tredegar Corp., 

725 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2013)................................................................................................15 

Azure Networks, LLC v. CSR PLC, 

771 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................14 

ePlus, Inc. v. Lawson Software, Inc., 

700 F.3d 509 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..................................................................................................15 

Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 

572 U.S. 898 (2014) .................................................................................................................15 

Phillips v. AWH Corp., 

415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)................................................................................................14 

Sonix Tech. Co., Ltd. v. Publ’ns Int’l, Ltd., 

844 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2017)................................................................................................15 

Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 

669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012)................................................................................................15 

True Chem. Sols., LLC v. Performance Chem. Co., 

No. MO-18-CV-00078-ADA (W.D. Tex. Sept. 25, 2019) ................................................14, 15 

Whirlpool Corp. v. Ozcan, 

No. 2:15-CV-2103-JRG, 2016 WL 7474517 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 29, 2016) ..........................15, 16 

Statutes 

35 U.S.C. § 112(b) .........................................................................................................................15 

Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 34-1 Filed 08/26/20 Page 4 of 64 Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 27 Filed 07/15/20 Page 3 of 25
 iii 

EXHIBIT LIST 

Ex. Description 

A Declaration of Dr. Gary R. Wooley 

B U.S. Pat. Publ. No. 2012/0181015 A1 (“Kajaria”) 

C Frac Manifold, SCHLUMBERGER OILFIELD GLOSSARY

D GLOSSARY OF OILFIELD PRODUCTION TERMINOLOGY (1st ed. 1988) 

E U.S. Patent Publication No. 2010/0300672 (“Childress”) 

F WAN RENPU, ADVANCED WELL COMPLETION ENGINEERING (3d ed. 2011) 

G Christmas Tree, SCHLUMBERGER OILFIELD GLOSSARY

H MICHAEL ECONOMIDES AND KENNETH G. NOLTE,RESERVOIR STIMULATION (3d ed. 2000) 

I A DICTIONARY FOR THE OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY (1st ed. 2005) 

J Frac Tree, SCHLUMBERGER OILFIELD GLOSSARY

K Frac Head, SCHLUMBERGER OILFIELD GLOSSARY

L Joint, SCHLUMBERGER OILFIELD GLOSSARY

M Trunk Line, SCHLUMBERGER OILFIELD GLOSSARY

N Office Action, U.S. Patent Appl. No. 16/206,160 (Jan. 3, 2019) 

O Response to Office Action, U.S. Patent Appl. No. 16/206,160 (Feb. 21, 2019) 

Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 34-1 Filed 08/26/20 Page 5 of 64 Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 27 Filed 07/15/20 Page 4 of 25
 1 

I. INTRODUCTION 

Butch’s proposed ten terms for construction. It contends that nine are indefinite, including 

simple-to-understand terms like “a single fluid conduit.” Butch’s also argues that typical patent 

claim terms, like “attached to” and “positioned at,” are indefinite. But all of these terms have plain 

and ordinary meanings, and their meanings are otherwise clear from the intrinsic record. None of 

the identified terms are indefinite, and a person of ordinary skill in the art (a “POSITA”)—who 

would have significant relevant industry experience and education—would understand them with 

reasonable certainty. 

For the remaining term, Butch’s proposes that “pipe joints” means “structures for joining 

pipes.” This contradicts the common industry usage, and the plain language of the claims, which 

describe the “pipe joints” as being “coupled to” connection blocks, and which describe the 

connection blocks themselves as joining pipes. The claims, the specification, and the entire oilfield 

industry use “pipe joints” to mean lengths of pipe. The Court should adopt the ordinary and 

customary understanding in the industry as applied the same way in the patent claims. 

As to “positioned at,” Cameron proposes that the Court should construe this term to mean 

“attached to or adjacent to.” This will clarify for the jury that the connection block that is 

“positioned at” the fracturing tree to provide fracturing fluid to the well can be either “attached to” 

the fracturing tree (e.g., included as part of the stack of valves and conduits composing the 

fracturing tree), or “adjacent to” the fracturing tree. 

As explained in detail below, the Court should find all of the proposed terms not indefinite; 

apply the straightforward industry-based and patent supported proposed constructions for “pipe 

joints” and “positioned at”; and give all of the remaining terms their plain and ordinary meanings. 

Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 34-1 Filed 08/26/20 Page 6 of 64 Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 27 Filed 07/15/20 Page 5 of 25
 2 

II. BACKGROUND AND ASSERTED PATENTS 

Hydraulic fracturing is a method of stimulating the production of oil and gas from a 

reservoir that involves pumping fluids downhole at high pressures and flow rates to fracture the 

oil and gas containing formations. Ex. A, ¶¶ 27–32. Hydraulic fracturing requires a substantial 

deployment of equipment to the wellsite, including frac tanks, blenders, pump trucks, and proppant 

storage units. Id. A depiction of a typical prior-art fracturing operation is below. Ex. A, ¶¶ 30–32 

(annotating Ex. B, Fig. 1C). 

As this figure shows, 

fracturing a single well 12A 

(red) requires deploying and 

connecting many pieces of 

fracturing equipment, such 

as high-pressure pumps 9A–

9E (green) mounted on 

pump trucks 5A–5E (purple) for providing fracturing fluid to well 12A. Id. 

The depiction of the connections between these components, including fluid conduits 10A–

10E (blue) between the outlets of the high-pressure pumps and the single well 12A, is “vastly 

simplified,” as the complexity of the interconnections “is significant and expensive.” Id. (quoting 

Ex. B, [0011]). Given this complexity, moving the equipment to fracture the next well (e.g., 12B 

(outlined red)) introduces significant downtime between fracturing operations, increasing costs 

and delaying production. Id. 

This dispute concerns three components of modern fracturing—fracturing manifolds, 

fracturing trees, and the fluid conduits that connection them—that together reduce the costs and 

delays of moving fracturing operations from one well to the next in prior-art fracturing systems. 

Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 34-1 Filed 08/26/20 Page 7 of 64 Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 27 Filed 07/15/20 Page 6 of 25
 3 

A. Fracturing Manifolds 

A fracturing manifold is a series of pipes, connections, and valves that direct fracturing 

fluid from the fracturing fluid supply toward the individual wells. Id. ¶ 33; Ex. C (defining “frac 

manifold” as “[a] system of frac valves that directs treatment fluid from the missile to multiple 

frac trees”); Ex. D (defining “manifold” as “[a]n accessory system of valves and piping to a main 

piping system (or other conductors) that serves to divide a flow into several parts, to combine 

several flows into one, or to reroute a flow to any one of several possible destinations”). 

The illustration below shows how fracturing manifolds can simplify fracturing multiple 

wells by allowing operators to make 

connections 52 (yellow highlighted 

number) (analogous to the simplified 

connections 10A-10E depicted above) to 

each well 48 (red highlighted number) in 

advance. Ex. A ¶¶ 34–36; Ex. E, [0019], 

[0021] (noting valves 38 (green 

highlighted number) control flow into the 

high pressure lines 52 so that “a single 

valve 38 is capable of controlling the 

entire pumping and isolation functions 

for one well 14”). 

The operator can then redirect the 

fracturing fluid to a particular well by opening a corresponding valve 38. Ex. A ¶¶ 34–36; Ex. E, 

[0019], [0021]. But as explained below, connections 52 between a prior-art fracturing manifold’s 

Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 34-1 Filed 08/26/20 Page 8 of 64 Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 27 Filed 07/15/20 Page 7 of 25
 4 

outlet and its respective well are complex and expensive, and the high pressures inherent to 

hydraulic fracturing may require upgraded equipment at the wellhead. Ex. A, ¶¶ 45–50. 

B. Fracturing Trees 

One such piece of upgraded wellhead equipment is a fracturing tree. Fracturing trees are a 

specific type of Christmas tree installed specifically for the fracturing process. Ex. A, ¶¶ 49–50; 

Ex. J (defining “frac tree” as “[a] Christmas tree installed specifically for the fracturing process.”). 

A Christmas tree is “[a]n assembly of valves, spools, pressure gauges, and chokes fitting to the 

wellhead of a completed well to control production.” Ex. G; Ex. A, ¶¶ 42–44; Ex. F, 

CMRN000961 (“A ‘Christmas tree’ is an assembly consisting of valves and fittings and is used 

for controlling oil- and gas-well fluid and providing outlets and inlets for produced fluid and 

washing fluid, and so on.”). An operator installs the Christmas tree on top of a wellhead assembly 

(a system of valves and adapters at the 

wellbore’s surface termination). Ex. A, ¶¶ 42–

43; Ex. F, CMRN000960. 

The figure at right depicts a typical 

Christmas tree. Ex. A, ¶¶ 44–45; Ex. G 

(enlarged). Although there are various types 

of Christmas trees designed for specific uses 

(Ex. F, CMRN000961), the components of 

typical Christmas trees have production 

pressure ratings. Ex. A, ¶¶ 44–50; Ex. I 

(defining “Christmas Tree” as “used when reservoir pressure is sufficient to cause reservoir fluids 

to flow to the surface”); Ex. D (defining “Christmas Tree” as a device “to control well 

Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 34-1 Filed 08/26/20 Page 9 of 64 Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 27 Filed 07/15/20 Page 8 of 25
 5 

production”). As this suggests, using typical Christmas trees for much higher pressure operations 

like fracturing may lead to costly and dangerous failures. Ex. A, ¶¶ 44–50. 

One way operators can avoid these costly and dangerous failures is by using isolation 

equipment when a typical Christmas tree is in place during a fracturing operation. Ex. A, ¶ 47. 

Tree savers, for instance, are isolation equipment that can protect the Christmas tree and the 

wellhead from the high fracturing pressures and abrasive fracturing materials. Ex. H, 

CMRN000521; Ex. A, ¶ 47. The tree saver mounts on the existing Christmas tree, and a mandrel 

extends through the valves on the tree and into the tubing to prevent the fluid or pressure from 

directly reaching the tree. Ex. H, CMRN000521; Ex. A, ¶ 47. After fracturing is complete, the 

operator removes the tree saver, and the Christmas tree and wellhead valves can operate normally 

to control the flow of production fluid. Ex. H, CMRN000521; Ex. A, ¶ 47. 

Alternatively, an operator can replace the Christmas tree with a fracturing tree. Ex. A, 

¶¶ 48–50; Ex. J (defining “frac tree” as “[a] Christmas tree installed specifically for the fracturing 

process.”). Although frac trees may look similar to typical Christmas trees, and share many 

components, “[f]rac trees generally have larger bores and higher pressure ratings than production 

trees to accommodate the high flow rates and pressures necessary for hydraulic fracturing.” Ex. J; 

Ex. A, ¶¶ 48–50. To provide for these higher pressure ratings and flow rates, fracturing trees 

comprise heavier-duty materials and valves than typical Christmas trees. Ex, A, ¶ 49. These 

upgrades make fracturing trees more expensive, heavier, and bulkier. Id. 

C. Fluid Conduits 

Connecting the fracturing tree to the fracturing manifold can be complex. Id., ¶¶ 37–41. As 

explained above, the fracturing tree is large and heavy, and is in a fixed position above the 

wellbore. Id. The fracturing manifold, likewise comprising heavy-duty pipes and valves that can 

withstand the pressures and abrasive materials inherent to fracturing, is also large and heavy. Id.

Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 34-1 Filed 08/26/20 Page 10 of 64 Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 27 Filed 07/15/20 Page 9 of 25
 6 

And it is in a fixed position to best accommodate bringing fluid to multiple wells from the various 

mixers and pumps. Id. Because of this, the outlets of fracturing manifolds and the inlets of 

fracturing trees generally do not align, vertically or horizontally. Id. Connecting fracturing 

manifolds to fracturing trees thus usually requires installing fluid conduits that can change 

direction between the respective outlets and inlets. Id.

1. Prior-art frac iron—multiple fluid pathways 

The prior art solved this problem of making the vertical and horizontal changes necessary 

to connect the fracturing manifold to the fracturing tree (while also 

providing sufficient flow rate and pressure) by using multiple pieces 

of smaller-diameter fluid conduits called “frac iron,” or “treating 

iron.” Id., ¶ 37; Ex. H, CMRN000521–000523. As the annotated 

figure at left shows, crosses or tees at the outlet of prior-art 

fracturing manifolds may provide outlets for connecting multiple 

pieces of frac iron (connections 52). Ex. E, Fig. 1 (annotated and excerpted), [0019]; Ex. A, ¶ 37. 

To provide inlets for multiple pieces of frac iron, a fracturing tree includes a flow cross, 

commonly called a “frac head.” Ex. A, ¶ 51; 

Ex. K (defining “frac head” as “[a] flow cross 

installed on top of a frac tree where treating iron 

is connected and treatment fluid enters the frac 

tree”) (noting “goat head” as an alternative form of the term); Ex. J (“A frac tree typically consists 

of upper and lower master valves, flow cross, wing valves, goat head, and swab valve.”). As the 

green arrows in the above annotated images of typical frac heads show, frac heads include multiple 

inlets for connecting frac iron to the fracturing tree. Ex. A, ¶ 51. 

Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 34-1 Filed 08/26/20 Page 11 of 64 Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 27 Filed 07/15/20 Page 10 of 25
 7 

The below figure shows how the frac iron lines running between the flow cross at the 

fracturing manifold and the frac head at the 

fracturing tree provide multiple fluid 

pathways between the fracturing manifold 

and the fracturing tree. Ex. E, Fig. 1 

(annotated); Ex. A, ¶¶ 33–36. With the 

valves 38 (outlined red) closed, and the 

valve 38 (outlined green) open, the 

fracturing fluid will flow (blue arrows) 

through the outlet cross 40 at the fracturing 

manifold, through high pressure lines 52 

(the frac iron), and into inlet 

connections 54 on the frac head at frac tree 48. Ex. E, [0019], [0021]; Ex. A, ¶¶ 33–36, 51. As this 

figure reflects, each high pressure line 52 thus represents a separate fluid pathway between the 

fracturing manifold and frac tree 48. Ex. A, ¶¶ 33–35. 

To facilitate the horizontal and vertical adjustments necessary to align frac iron along the 

ground from the fracturing manifold and up to the frac head inlets 

(generally at or near the top of the fracturing tree), multiple 

segments of frac iron connect using hammer unions. Ex. A, 

¶¶ 39–41. A typical make-up requires dozens of these hammer 

unions, which, as the name implies, workers must install using 

repeated sledgehammer strikes, as in the image at right. Id. Aside 

from complicating frac iron connections, hammer unions have 

Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 34-1 Filed 08/26/20 Page 12 of 64 Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 27 Filed 07/15/20 Page 11 of 25
 8 

other disadvantages. Id. Each of the dozens of hammer unions between a frac manifold’s outlet 

and the corresponding inlet at a fracturing tree represents a potential point of failure because of the 

high pressures. Id. These connections are often the source of simultaneous leaks. Id. 

Even properly installed frac iron increases the risk of worksite injuries and leaks. Id.

Crisscrossing frac iron creates a hazardous “spaghetti plate” at the wellsite. Id. This requires the 

use of tie-downs to decrease vibrations in, and movement of, the frac iron. Id. And using multiple, 

smaller-diameter fluid conduits during high-pressure fracturing operations increases the likelihood 

of leaks, while also creating bottlenecks in the flow path. Id. For these reasons, and those obvious 

from the picture above, workers have coined the derisive term “fractapus” to describe the jumble 

of frac iron running to the frac head atop a fracturing tree in a traditional fracturing operation. Id. 

2. Cameron’s single fluid conduit—one and only one fluid pathway 

Some inventions in U.S. Patent Nos. 9,915,132 (ECF No. 1-1) (the “’132 Patent”) and 

10,385,645 (ECF No. 1-2) (the “’645 Patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”) seek to solve 

Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 34-1 Filed 08/26/20 Page 13 of 64 Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 27 Filed 07/15/20 Page 12 of 25
 9 

the problems explained above by, among other things, simplifying the connections to fracturing 

trees by enabling the use of a single, larger-diameter fluid conduit instead of multiple pieces of 

prior art iron, providing one and only one fluid pathway between the fracturing manifold and each 

fracturing tree. 

a. ’132 Patent 

The ’132 Patent teaches methods and systems to “accommodate spacing and elevation 

differences” when connecting fracturing trees. See, e.g., ’132 Patent at Abstract; Ex. A, ¶ 53. In 

some embodiments, the ’132 Patent discloses a single fluid conduit to the fracturing tree 

comprising connection blocks 42 connecting lengths of conduit (e.g., pipe sections) together to 

accommodate for these differences in space and elevation. See ’132 Patent at 5:62–6:3. 

Asserted Claims 9 and 12 describe such embodiments. Claim 9 requires “a single fluid 

conduit coupled to the well fracturing tree,” where “the single fluid conduit includes . . . a first 

connection block positioned at the well fracturing tree” and “a second connection block,” with 

“one or more pipe sections coupled between the first connection block and the second connection 

block.” Id. Although some dependent claims (e.g., Claim 11) require adding adjustment joints, the 

embodiment in Claim 9 is broader, and provides for vertical and horizontal adjustments of the fluid 

conduit by using individual lengths of pipe through the connection blocks. Id.; Ex. A, ¶ 54. While 

Claim 9 requires only a single well fracturing tree, Claim 12 (which depends from Claim 9) 

describes an embodiment comprising another well fracturing tree—which a POSITA would 

understand to connect to the system just as the independent claim describes. Ex. A, ¶¶ 53–55. 

b. ’645 Patent 

The ’645 Patent similarly teaches, among other things, systems and methods for providing 

a single fluid pathway between a fracturing manifold and a fracturing tree instead of prior-art frac 

iron. See, e.g., ’645 Patent at 9:25–28 (“Like some other embodiments described above, the 

Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 34-1 Filed 08/26/20 Page 14 of 64 Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 27 Filed 07/15/20 Page 13 of 25
 10 

fracturing system depicted in Fig. 11 uses only a single fluid conduit 26 per fracturing tree 20 

rather than using multiple, smaller fluid conduits.”); Ex. A, ¶¶ 56–64. 

i. Connection blocks and pipe joints 

Annotated Figure 11 below reflects one such embodiment. Id.; ’645 Patent at 8:49–57, 9:9–

38. The fluid conduit in this embodiment comprises several pipes 170 (yellow highlighted 

numbering) that connect to each other through 

connection blocks 172 (green highlighted 

numbering). ’645 Patent at 8:49–57. Claim 1 

requires a fracturing manifold, a plurality of 

fracturing trees (e.g., element 20 (red)), and a 

plurality of fluid conduits (e.g., the blue-shaded 

element in Figure 11). See id. at Claim 1. 

The plurality of fluid conduits couples 

the fracturing manifold to the fracturing trees. 

Id. Any individual fluid conduit to a fracturing 

tree can comprise one or more rigid fluid 

components connected in series (as with the six pipes 170 in Figure 11). Id. But Claim 1 requires 

that there is ultimately “one and only one rigid fluid pathway from the fracturing manifold to the 

fracturing tree,” like the shaded blue fluid conduit from Figure 11. See id. In other words, Claim 1 

excludes solutions like multiple pieces of prior-art frac iron that would provide multiple fluid 

pathways between the fracturing manifold and the fracturing tree. Ex. A, ¶¶ 57–63.1

 

1

 This is also clear from the prosecution history. The Examiner at first rejected Claim 1 for doublepatenting over U.S. Patent No. 9,932,800. Ex. N at CMRN000288–000289. The Examiner 

Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 34-1 Filed 08/26/20 Page 15 of 64 Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 27 Filed 07/15/20 Page 14 of 25
 11 

Claim 1 further requires that the rigid fluid pathway include pipe joints (e.g., pipes 170 in 

the Figure 11 embodiment)2

 and connection blocks. ’645 Patent at Claim 1. Although some 

dependent claims (e.g., Claims 5–6) require adjustment joints, Claim 1 does not. Id. Claim 1 is 

broader. It also includes the embodiments where the pipe joints and connection blocks can “be 

rotated to desired positions before assembling these 

components together (e.g., via studded connections)” to 

achieve the desired horizontal and vertical adjustments to 

connect the outlet of the fracturing manifold to the inlet of 

the fracturing tree. Id. at 8:37–43. 

Claim 1 also requires a specific arrangement of the 

pipes and connection blocks, an example of which the 

annotated Figure 11 at right highlights.3

 Ex. A, ¶¶ 60–61. 

For instance, Claim 1 requires “a first pipe [green arrow] 

that is attached to a first connection block [yellow arrow] via a first flanged connection [purple 

 

understood the ’800 Patent to require that “the fracturing trees are coupled to the fracturing 

manifold by only one rigid fluid conduit.” Id. at CMRN000291. After a telephonic interview, the 

applicant amended Claim 1 in further accordance with the prior-issued ’800 Patent to add the “one 

and only one rigid fluid pathway” limitation to clarify this point. See Ex. O at CMRN000322, 

000329. The applicant differentiated Claim 1 from the relevant claims in the ’800 Patent by 

amending to require the specific arrangement of pipes and connection blocks in series that appear 

in the issued claim. Id. at CMRN000329. The applicant and Examiner thus understood Claim 1 to 

exclude embodiments, like those using prior-art frac iron, where there are multiple fluid pathways 

between the fracturing manifold and the fracturing tree. 

2

 As Cameron will explain in more detail below, the ordinary and customary meaning of “pipe 

joint” in the art is “a length of pipe.” See, e.g., Ex. D (defining “joint” as “[a] length of pipe”); 

Ex. L (defining “joint” as “[a] length of pipe”); Ex. A, ¶¶ 23, 70–75 (confirming these definitions). 

3

 Because there are more than two pipe joints and connection blocks in the Figure 11 embodiment, 

there are other ways to read Claim 1 onto this configuration. 

Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 34-1 Filed 08/26/20 Page 16 of 64 Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 27 Filed 07/15/20 Page 15 of 25
 12 

arrow].” ’645 Patent at Claim 1. It further requires “a second pipe [orange arrow] that is in fluid 

communication with the first pipe and is attached to a second connection block [silver arrow] via 

a second flanged connection [pink arrow].” Id. 

ii. Trunk lines and outlet branches 

Some embodiments of the ’645 Patent require a shared trunk line and outlet branches.4

 The 

shared trunk line generally refers to the portion of the fracturing manifold where pressurized fluid 

enters, and from which fluid flows to the fracturing manifold’s various outlet branches. See, e.g., 

’645 Patent at Abstract (“[t]he fracturing manifold can include a trunk line that provides fracturing 

fluid to multiple outlet branches”), 1:66–2:4 (“In some instances, a fracturing manifold includes a 

trunk line for providing fracturing fluid to multiple outlet branches of the manifold.”); Ex. A, 

¶¶ 62–63; Ex. I (defining “trunkline” as “a main line”); Ex. M (defining “trunk line” as “[f]langed 

piping that connects the missile to each leg on a frac manifold”).5

With that in mind, the outlet branches are extensions from the shared trunk line that, in 

some embodiments, can bring the manifold’s outlet and valves closer to the well. See, e.g., ’645 

Patent at Abstract (“[outlet branches] can include valves for controlling flow of fracturing fluid to 

wells downstream of the valves”), 1:66–2:4 (“the multiple outlet branches can include valves for 

controlling flow of fracturing fluid toward wells from the trunk line”); Ex. A, ¶¶ 62–63. 

 For example, annotated Figure 10 (below) from the ’645 Patent reflects one such 

configuration. Id. In this configuration, the visible portion of fracturing manifold 22’s shared trunk 

 

4

 Some claims use the term “trunk line,” while others use the term “shared trunk conduit.” Both 

terms describe the same element. See Ex. A, ¶ 62. 

5

 The term “missile” refers to the component where the pumps pressurize the fracturing fluid and 

that then provides the pressurized fracturing fluid to the fracturing manifold. See Ex. A, ¶ 62. 

Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 34-1 Filed 08/26/20 Page 17 of 64 Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 27 Filed 07/15/20 Page 16 of 25
 13 

line (green) includes conduit 42 and connection blocks 48 and 50. See ’645 Patent at 1:66–2:4, 

8:26–48. The outlet branches 

(purple) are the manifold’s 

extensions from the shared trunk 

line, which in this embodiment 

comprise a pair of valves 46 and 44, 

respectively. See id., Claim 3 

(requiring valves in the outlet 

branches), Claim 4 (requiring “a first 

outlet branch having two valves 

connected in series” and “a second 

outlet branch having two valves 

connected in series”). 

In this embodiment, fluid connection 26 (blue) between the fracturing manifold and the 

fracturing tree (red) begins at the outlet of the respective valves 46 and 44. See ’645 Patent at 1:66–

2:4, 8:26–48. In other embodiments, the outlet branches might not have valves, and the manifold 

valves might be in different locations. See id. at Claim 2 (requiring outlet branches but not 

requiring they contain valves). The green shared trunk line can extend and include additional outlet 

branches to service additional wells. 

* * * * * 

In sum, the Asserted Patents teach (among other things) systems and methods that use a 

single, rigid, larger-diameter fluid conduit in place of multiple lines of smaller-diameter frac iron. 

Ex. A, ¶¶ 56–65. Many advantages of this change—like simplifying the setup and eliminating 

Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 34-1 Filed 08/26/20 Page 18 of 64 Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 27 Filed 07/15/20 Page 17 of 25
 14 

potential points of failure by providing a single fluid pathway between the fracturing manifold and 

the fracturing tree—are evident from comparing Cameron’s commercial embodiment, 

MONOLINETM (below, left), with a prior-art fracturing job using frac iron (below, right). Id.

III. LEGAL STANDARDS 

A. Claim Construction 

Courts must generally give claim terms their plain and ordinary meanings. Phillips v. AWH 

Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc); Azure Networks, LLC v. CSR PLC, 771 

F.3d 1336, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“There is a heavy presumption that claim terms carry their 

accustomed meaning in the relevant community at the relevant time.”) (vacated on other grounds) 

(internal quotations omitted). The plain and ordinary meaning of a term is the “meaning that the 

term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention.” 

Philips, 415 F.3d at 1313. 

“Although extrinsic evidence can also be useful, it is ‘less significant than the intrinsic 

record in determining the legally operative meaning of claim language.’” True Chem. Sols., LLC 

v. Performance Chem. Co., No. MO-18-CV-00078-ADA, at 3 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 25, 2019) (quoting 

Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317). “Technical dictionaries may be helpful, but they may also provide 

definitions that are too broad or not indicative of how the term is used in the patent.” Id. “Expert 

testimony also may be helpful,” but it should be supported and well-reasoned. Id. 

Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 34-1 Filed 08/26/20 Page 19 of 64 Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 27 Filed 07/15/20 Page 18 of 25
 15 

There are ultimately “‘only two exceptions to [the] general rule’ that claim terms are 

construed according to their plain and ordinary meaning.” Id. (quoting Thorner v. Sony Computer 

Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). These two exceptions arise “when the 

patentee (1) acts as his/her own lexicographer or (2) disavows the full scope of the claim term 

either in the specification or during prosecution.” Id. “To act as his/her own lexicographer, the 

patentee must ‘clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term,’ and ‘clearly express an 

intent to define the term.’” Id. at 3–4 (quoting Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365). Disavowing claim scope 

requires “a clear disavowal.” Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1366. So when “an applicant’s statements are 

amenable to multiple reasonable interpretations, they cannot be deemed clear and unmistakable,” 

and those statements cannot provide a clear disavowal of claim scope. 3M Innovative Props. Co. 

v. Tredegar Corp., 725 F.3d 1315, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2013). 

B. Indefiniteness 

Patent claims must particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter of the 

invention. 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). This does not demand absolute precision—claims are indefinite 

only if “read in light of the specification delineating the patent, and the prosecution history, [they] 

fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention.” 

Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 901 (2014). As it challenges a patent’s 

validity, a challenger must show the failure of any claim for indefiniteness by clear and convincing 

evidence. Sonix Tech. Co., Ltd. v. Publ’ns Int’l, Ltd., 844 F.3d 1370, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017). 

In the end, “indefiniteness is a question of law and in effect part of claim construction.”

ePlus, Inc. v. Lawson Software, Inc., 700 F.3d 509, 517 (Fed. Cir. 2012). And conclusory 

assertions of indefiniteness cannot meet the clear and convincing burden. See, e.g., Whirlpool 

Corp. v. Ozcan, No. 2:15-CV-2103-JRG, 2016 WL 7474517, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 29, 2016) 

(finding defendant “failed to meet the high burden necessary to establish that the relevant claims 

Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 34-1 Filed 08/26/20 Page 20 of 64 Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 27 Filed 07/15/20 Page 19 of 25
 16 

are indefinite” where “[i]nstead of submitting evidence, such as an expert declaration, to 

demonstrate the understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art, [defendant] relie[d] entirely 

on attorney argument based on the patent’s intrinsic evidence”) (Gilstrap, J.). 

IV. CLAIM TERMS 

Butch’s contends that every claim term but one (pipe joints) is indefinite. These terms, 

however, have plain and ordinary meanings that a POSITA would easily understand within the 

context of the claims with reasonable certainty. The discussion above about the technology 

disclosed in the patents shows this because it explains (and in many cases illustrates) within the 

context of the claims, and based on the skill and knowledge of a POSITA, many terms that Butch’s 

contends are indefinite. See, e.g., § II(c)(2), supra (discussing and/or illustrating “a single fluid 

conduit,” “fracturing trees,” “one and only one rigid fluid pathway,” “one rigid fluid conduit,” 

“outlet branches,” “pipes,” “connection blocks,” and “studded connections”). 

That the claims are not indefinite is also apparent from the declaration of Dr. Gary 

R. Wooley. As his declaration explains, Dr. Wooley has the requisite education, training, and 

experience of one of ordinary skill in the art. See Ex. A at ¶¶ 1–11, 24–26. After reviewing the 

claims, the specification, and the prosecution history, Dr. Wooley is unequivocal that a POSITA 

would understand these terms with reasonable certainty. See id. at ¶¶ 23, 66–67. 

As to Butch’s positions, it has not explained why simple terms like “fluid conduit” do not 

have a plain and ordinary meaning and are not capable of construction with reasonable clarity. But 

Butch’s has informed Cameron that it will not rely on any expert to support its indefiniteness 

arguments. Courts facing this situation—where one party argues indefiniteness with no expert 

testimony support, and the other has evidence and expert testimony to support a term’s meaning—

have rejected indefiniteness. See Whirlpool Corp., 2016 WL 7474517, at *3 (finding defendant 

“failed to meet the high burden necessary to establish that the relevant claims are indefinite” where 

Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 34-1 Filed 08/26/20 Page 21 of 64 Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 27 Filed 07/15/20 Page 20 of 25
 17 

“[i]nstead of submitting evidence, such as an expert declaration, to demonstrate the understanding 

of a person of ordinary skill in the art, [the defendant] relie[d] entirely on attorney argument based 

on the patent’s intrinsic evidence” because “[t]he Court finds such argument unpersuasive”). That 

said, because the bases for Butch’s indefiniteness contentions are unclear, Cameron will respond 

to Butch’s specific arguments after Butch’s reveals them in its opening brief. 

For now, Cameron will focus on the only terms for which either party has proposed a 

construction: “positioned at” from the ’132 Patent, and “pipe joints” from the ’645 Patent. The 

Court should adopt Cameron’s proposed constructions for both for the reasons explained below. 

A. ’132 Patent: “positioned at” 

Claim 9 

Cameron’s Proposed Construction Butch’s Proposed Construction

“attached to or adjacent to” Indefinite 

Claim 9 requires “a first connection block positioned at the well fracturing tree.” ’132 

Patent at Claim 9 (emphasis added). This claim also requires that “fracturing fluid can be routed 

. . . to the well fracturing tree through the first connection block.” A POSITA would understand 

this to mean that the second connection block is attached to the fracturing tree (e.g., as part of the 

stack of valves comprising the fracturing tree), or adjacent to the fracturing tree, to facilitate the 

flow of fracturing fluid into the wellbore. See Ex. A, ¶¶ 68–69. 

This understanding fits with dependent Claim 10, which requires the connection block to 

be “attached to a valve of the well fracturing tree.” Butch’s is wrong that this term is indefinite. 

As explained above, based on the claim language and the intrinsic record, a POSITA would 

understand with reasonable certainty how the first connection block is positioned at the well. See

Ex. A, ¶¶ 68–69. The Court should therefore find this term not indefinite, and construe it to mean 

“attached to or adjacent to.” 

Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 34-1 Filed 08/26/20 Page 22 of 64 Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 27 Filed 07/15/20 Page 21 of 25
 18 

B. ’645 Patent: “pipe joints” 

Claim 1 

Cameron’s Proposed Construction Butch’s Proposed Construction

“lengths of pipe” “structures for joining pipes” 

Claim 1 requires “a plurality of pipe joints and connection blocks coupled to one another,” 

and describes “the plurality of pipe joints and connection blocks” as including “a first pipe that is 

attached for a first connection block” and “a second pipe that is . . . attached to a second connection 

block.” As this shows, the “plurality of pipe joints” (which are described as “coupled to” the 

connection blocks) include the first and second pipes later described as “attached to” the first and 

second connection blocks, respectively. See Ex. A, ¶¶ 70–75. 

The specification supports this understanding of Claim 1 for the reasons that Section 

II(c)(2)(b)(i), supra, illustrates. For instance, Figures 10 and 11 show embodiments where fluid 

conduit 26 comprises lengths of pipe connected to connection blocks in the manner described in 

Claim 1. The specification further refers to element 170 alternately in the same paragraph as “pipe 

joints 170” and “pipes 170.” See ’645 Patent at 8:29–43. As shown in the annotated Figures above, 

such as Figures 10 and 11, element 170 is a length of pipe, not a structure for joining pipes. In 

short, the intrinsic record supports Cameron’s position that “pipe joints” refers to “lengths of pipe,” 

and nothing in the intrinsic record suggests that “pipe joints” are distinct from “pipes,” or that 

“pipe joints” means “structures for joining pipes,” as Butch’s proposes. See Ex. A, ¶¶ 71–73. 

In any event, Butch’s proposal is particularly inappropriate given the language of Claim 1, 

as it would require coupling “structures for joining pipes” with connection blocks—which are, as 

Claim 1 requires, themselves structures for joining pipes. Id., ¶ 71; ’645 Patent at 9:34–38 

(“Additionally, although the pipes 170 are shown connected orthogonally to one another via the 

connection blocks 172 in the present embodiment, other embodiments could include pipes 170 

Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 34-1 Filed 08/26/20 Page 23 of 64 Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 27 Filed 07/15/20 Page 22 of 25
 19 

connected to one another at different angles.”), Claim 1 (“a first pipe that is attached to a first 

connection block . . . a second pipe that is . . . attached to a second connection block”), Claim 7 

(“the second pipe is also attached to the first connection block”), Claim 8 (“the first pipe and the 

second pipe are connected orthogonally to one another via the first connection block”), Claims 10–

11, Claim 14, Claim 17, Claim 20, Figs. 3, 10–11. 

And the intrinsic record’s use of “pipe joints” to mean “lengths of pipe” adheres to the 

ordinary and customary use in the industry. See Ex. L (defining “joint” as “[a] length of pipe”); 

Ex. D (defining “joint” as “[a] length of pipe”); Ex. A, ¶ 74 (concurring with these definitions). 

Unlike Butch’s proposal, which conflates the pipe joints and connection blocks, Cameron’s 

proposal also clarifies the claim language for the jury. See, e.g., ’645 Patent at Claim 1 (“a plurality 

of [lengths of pipe] and connection blocks coupled to one another . . . including: a first pipe that is 

attached to a first connection block . . . and a second pipe that is . . . attached to a second 

connection block”). The Court should thus construe “pipe joints” consistent with the intrinsic 

record, and its ordinary and customary meaning in the industry, to mean “lengths of pipe.” 

V. CONCLUSION 

As the above discussion shows, a POSITA would understand all the identified terms with 

reasonable certainty. The Court should therefore find all the claims not indefinite; adopt 

Cameron’s proposed constructions for “positioned at” and “pipe joints”; and give the remaining 

terms their plain and ordinary meanings.

Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 34-1 Filed 08/26/20 Page 24 of 64 Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 27 Filed 07/15/20 Page 23 of 25
 20 

DATED: July 15, 2020 Respectfully submitted, 

By: /s/ John R. Keville

John R. Keville 

Texas Bar No. 00794085 

jkeville@winston.com 

Merritt D. Westcott (Pro Hac Vice) 

Texas Bar No. 24027091 

mwestcott@winston.com 

William M. Logan 

Texas Bar No. 24106214 

wlogan@winston.com 

Evan D. Lewis (Pro Hac Vice) 

Texas Bar No. 24116670 

edlewis@winston.com 

WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 

800 Capitol Street, Suite 2400 

Houston, Texas 77002 

Telephone: (713) 651-2600 

Facsimile: (713) 651-2700 

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF, 

CAMERON INTERNATIONAL 

CORPORATION 

Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 34-1 Filed 08/26/20 Page 25 of 64 Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 27 Filed 07/15/20 Page 24 of 25
 21 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on the 15th day of July, 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk 

of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following: 

David G. Henry, Sr. 

DHenry@GrayReed.com 

Eric S. Tautfest 

etautfest@GrayReed.com 

Jared Hoggan 

jhoggan@GrayReed.com 

GRAY REED & MCGRAW LLP 

900 Washington Avenue, Suite 800 

Waco, Texas 76701 

M. Jill Bindler 

jbindler@GrayReed.com 

David T. DeZern 

ddezern@GrayReed.com 

David M. Lisch 

dlisch@GrayReed.com 

GRAY REED & MCGRAW LLP 

1601 Elm Street, Suite 4600 

Dallas, Texas 75201 

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT BUTCH’S 

 RATHOLE & ANCHOR SERVICE, INC. 

/s/ John R. Keville 

John R. Keville 

Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 34-1 Filed 08/26/20 Page 26 of 64 Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 27 Filed 07/15/20 Page 25 of 25
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

WACO DIVISION 

CAMERON INTERNATIONAL 

CORPORATION, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

BUTCH’S RATHOLE & ANCHOR 

SERVICE, INC., 

Defendant. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-00124 

JURY TRIAL REQUESTED 

 

PLAINTIFF CAMERON INTERNATIONAL CORP.’S 

RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF 

Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 34-1 Filed 08/26/20 Page 27 of 64 Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 29 Filed 08/05/20 Page 1 of 24
 i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

I. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1

II. Claim Construction Principles ............................................................................................ 2

III. Disputed Claim Terms ........................................................................................................ 3

A. ’132 Patent .............................................................................................................. 3

1. “a single fluid conduit” / “a single fluid conduit coupled to the well fracturing 

tree” ............................................................................................................. 3

2. “positioned at” .................................................................................................... 6

3. “comprising an additional well fracturing tree” .................................................. 7

B. ’645 Patent .............................................................................................................. 8

1. “one and only one rigid fluid pathway” .............................................................. 8

2. “at least one rigid fluid conduit” / “the at least one rigid fluid conduit” .......... 11

3. “pipe joints” ...................................................................................................... 13

4. “outlet branch(es)” ............................................................................................ 16

5. “the second connection block”; “the second pipe”; “the third studded 

connection” ............................................................................................... 17

6. “the second pipe”; “the first pipe”; “the third pipe” ......................................... 18

IV. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 18

Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 34-1 Filed 08/26/20 Page 28 of 64 Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 29 Filed 08/05/20 Page 2 of 24
 ii 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 

 Page(s) 

Baldwin Graphic Sys., Inc. v. Siebert, Inc., 

512 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2008)................................................................................................12 

Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Group, LP,

616 F.3d 1249, 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2010)......................................................................................15 

Bradford Co. v. Conteyor N. Am., Inc., 

603 F.3d 1262 (Fed. Cir. 2010)..................................................................................................5 

CAE Screenplates Inc. v. Heinrich Fiedler GmbH, 

224 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2000)................................................................................................14 

Capital Sec. Sys., Inc. v. NCR Corp., 

725 F. App’x 952 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ..........................................................................................11 

Carnegie Steel Co. v. Cambria Iron Co., 

185 U.S. 403 (1902) ...................................................................................................................2 

Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Applera Corp., 

599 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2010)..............................................................................................6, 7 

Fisher-Price, Inc. v. Graco Children’s Products, Inc., 

154 F. App’x 903 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................................5

Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc., 

527 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2008)................................................................................................14 

Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 

572 U.S. 898 (2014) ...............................................................................................................2, 7 

Nevro Corp. v. Boston Scientific Corporation, 

955 F.3d 35 (Fed. Cir. 2020)................................................................................................2, 10 

Quest Diagnostics Investments LLC v. Lab. Corp. of Am. Holdings, 

No. CV-18-1436 (MN), 2020 WL 210799 (D. Del. Jan. 14, 2020) ......................................4, 7 

Schoenhaus v. Genesco, Inc., 

440 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2006)................................................................................................15 

Sonix Tech. Co., Ltd. v. Publ’ns Int’l, Ltd., 

844 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2017)..................................................................................................2 

Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 

669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..................................................................................................4 

Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 34-1 Filed 08/26/20 Page 29 of 64 Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 29 Filed 08/05/20 Page 3 of 24
 iii 

True Chem. Sols., LLC v. Performance Chem. Co., 

No. MO-18-CV-00078-ADA (W.D. Tex. Sept. 25, 2019) ........................................................2 

Whirlpool Corp. v. Ozcan, 

No. 2:15-CV-2103-JRG, 2016 WL 7474517 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 29, 2016) ..................................2 

Statutes 

35 U.S.C. § 271(a) ...........................................................................................................................6 

Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 34-1 Filed 08/26/20 Page 30 of 64 Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 29 Filed 08/05/20 Page 4 of 24
 1 

I. INTRODUCTION 

Butch’s contends that nine of the ten terms it proposed for construction are indefinite. But 

claims are indefinite only if, viewed in light of the specification and prosecution history, they do 

not inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty. 

Butch’s provides no evidence that one skilled in the art would not be able to determine the scope 

of the claimed invention but relies solely on attorney argument. 

Contrary to Butch’s assertions, Cameron’s patents provide extensive intrinsic evidence 

about the meanings of the terms Butch’s alleges are indefinite. The extrinsic evidence Cameron 

sets forth below, and in its opening claim construction brief, also support those meanings. 

Cameron’s expert, Dr. Gary R. Wooley,1

 describes the state of the art and the claim terms, applies 

the claim terms to some embodiments disclosed in the specifications, and explains the claim terms 

in the context of the prior art. Dr. Wooley concludes that one skilled in the art would understand 

the challenged terms with reasonable certainty, and supports his conclusions with references to the 

intrinsic and extrinsic evidence, including industry textbooks and dictionaries. Finally, as to the 

solitary claim term for which Butch’s proposes a construction (“pipe joints”), Butch’s provides no 

intrinsic or extrinsic evidence for its construction. 

Butch’s has failed to show that Cameron’s claim terms are indefinite by clear and 

convincing evidence, or that its proposed construction of “pipe joints” is proper. The Court should 

adopt Cameron’s proposed constructions because they accord with the intrinsic and extrinsic 

evidence, including the opinion of an expert in the field of the patented inventions. 

 

1

 Dr. Wooley is a person of ordinary skill in the art (a “POSITA”) for the subject matter in the 

Asserted Patents. ECF No. 27-1, ¶¶ 24–26. 

Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 34-1 Filed 08/26/20 Page 31 of 64 Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 29 Filed 08/05/20 Page 5 of 24
 2 

II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION PRINCIPLES 

As Butch’s noted, this Court has summarized the claim construction standard well in other 

cases. See, e.g., True Chem. Sols., LLC v. Performance Chem. Co., No. MO-18-CV-00078-ADA, 

at 3 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 25, 2019). As to indefiniteness, Butch’s must prove the claim terms indefinite 

by clear and convincing evidence. Sonix Tech. Co., Ltd. v. Publ’ns Int’l, Ltd., 844 F.3d 1370, 1377 

(Fed. Cir. 2017). Claims are indefinite only if, when “read in light of the specification delineating 

the patent, and the prosecution history, [they] fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled 

in the art about the scope of the invention.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 

898, 901 (2014). 

But definiteness does not demand “absolute precision.” Id. A claim is not indefinite just 

because it is susceptible to differing interpretations, as this would render nearly every claim term 

indefinite whenever a party could manufacture a plausible alternative construction. Nevro Corp. 

v. Boston Sci. Corp., 955 F.3d 35, 41 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Instead, the patent may provide reasonable 

certainty about a claimed inventions’ scope by giving detailed guidance and examples of claimed 

systems and devices. Nevro Corp., 955 F.3d at 39. 

Moreover, “patents are ‘not addressed to lawyers, or even to the public generally,’ but to 

those skilled in the relevant art.” Nautilus, 572 U.S. at 901 (quoting Carnegie Steel Co. v. Cambria 

Iron Co., 185 U.S. 403, 437 (1902)). Because the indefiniteness inquiry turns on the understanding 

of a POSITA, courts have declined to find indefiniteness when, as here, a defendant provides only 

attorney argument about the intrinsic evidence. See, e.g., Whirlpool Corp. v. Ozcan, No. 2:15-CV2103-JRG, 2016 WL 7474517, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 29, 2016) (finding claims definite where 

“[i]nstead of submitting evidence, such as an expert declaration, to demonstrate the understanding 

of a person of ordinary skill in the art, [defendant] relies entirely on attorney argument based on 

the patent’s intrinsic evidence”). Here, Butch’s provides just argument but no evidence, and 

Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 34-1 Filed 08/26/20 Page 32 of 64 Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 29 Filed 08/05/20 Page 6 of 24
 3 

certainly not clear and convincing evidence that a POSITA would not understand the scope of the 

relevant claims with reasonable certainty. 

III. DISPUTED CLAIM TERMS 

A. ’132 Patent 

The ’132 patent generally describes various arrangements for fracturing systems. See, e.g., 

ECF No. 1-1 at Abstract; ECF No. 27-1, ¶ 53. As Dr. Wooley explains, some embodiments of the 

’132 patent specification disclose using a single fluid conduit to the fracturing tree, where that 

single fluid conduit comprises connection blocks between lengths of pipe (e.g., pipe sections). 

ECF No. 27-1 ¶¶ 53–55; ECF No. 1-1 at 5:62–6:3. 

Butch’s argues that the claimed subject matter is “remarkably simple” and uses “only wellknown industry components,” but also argues that the disputed claim terms are not understandable. 

ECF No. 28 at 2. As Cameron explains below, however, a POSITA would understand these simple 

terms with reasonable certainty. 

1. “a single fluid conduit” / “a single fluid conduit coupled to the well fracturing tree” 

Claim 9 

Cameron’s Proposed Construction Butch’s Proposed Construction

“a single fluid conduit” 

Plain and ordinary meaning 

“a single fluid conduit” 

Indefinite 

“a single fluid conduit coupled to the well 

fracturing tree” 

Plain and ordinary meaning: “a single fluid 

conduit coupled to a specific type of 

Christmas tree installed specifically for the 

fracturing process”

“a single fluid conduit coupled to the well 

fracturing tree” 

Indefinite 

(“fracturing tree”: plain and ordinary meaning) 

Claim 9 describes a “well fracturing tree” and “a single fluid conduit coupled to the well 

fracturing tree.” ECF No. 1-1. Butch’s argues incorrectly that “[t]here is no source of cognizable 

Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 34-1 Filed 08/26/20 Page 33 of 64 Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 29 Filed 08/05/20 Page 7 of 24
 4 

guidance for providing reasonable notice as to what point an operator has (or has not) a ‘single’ 

fluid conduit.” ECF No. 28 at 3. 

First, the words are not complicated. Butch’s does not argue that they are, nor that the 

patentee gave the words any special meanings. This should resolve the issue. See, e.g., Quest 

Diagnostics Invests. LLC v. Lab. Corp. of Am. Holdings, No. CV-18-1436 (MN), 2020 WL 

210799, at *5 (D. Del. Jan. 14, 2020) (finding “common words with common meaning” not 

indefinite); cf. Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012) 

(noting courts are to apply plain and ordinary meaning absent a clear definition from the patentee 

or a clear disavowal of claim scope). 

Second, Butch’s argument does not consider the understanding and knowledge of a 

POSITA. “Fluid conduit” and “fracturing tree”2

 are well-known industry terms. ECF No. 27-

1 ¶¶ 53–55, 67. A POSITA would have been familiar with coupling fluid conduits to fracturing 

trees from the extensive use of these components in the prior art. ECF No. 27-1 ¶¶ 53–55, 67. A 

POSITA also would have understood that in the prior art, multiple fluid conduits were coupled to 

a fracturing tree (ECF No. 27-1 ¶¶ 30–32, 37–41, 51),3 providing clarity that this particular claim 

language refers to using a single fluid conduit instead of those multiple fluid conduits. See id.

 

2

 Butch’s concedes the Court should give “fracturing tree” its plain and ordinary meaning. ECF 

No. 28 at 2. Cameron agrees, with the understanding that the plain and ordinary meaning refers to 

“a specific type of Christmas tree installed specifically for the fracturing process.” See ECF 

No. 27-1 ¶ 49. 

3

 For instance, Dr. Wooley describes that before modern fracturing manifolds a POSITA would 

have coupled multiple fluid conduits to a fracturing tree from several high-pressure pumps. Id.

¶¶ 30–32 (describing ECF No. 27-2). Dr. Wooley also confirms that a POSITA would have been 

familiar with coupling multiple fluid conduits (frac iron) to a fracturing tree from a fracturing 

manifold. Id. ¶¶ 37–41. And a POSITA would have understood that typical fracturing trees include 

“frac heads” that provide inlets for coupling multiple fluid conduits. Id. ¶ 51. 

Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 34-1 Filed 08/26/20 Page 34 of 64 Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 29 Filed 08/05/20 Page 8 of 24
 5 

¶¶ 52–53. This is also plainly evident by the following claim language: “such that, during a 

fracturing operation, fracturing fluid is delivered to the well fracturing tree through only the single 

fluid conduit.” ECF No. 1-1 at claim 9. Butch’s feigned confusion is inconsistent with the plain 

words in the claim. 

The same is true of Butch’s strained argument that the above claim language is ambiguous 

about whether a single fluid conduit comprising multiple components is still a “single fluid 

conduit.” ECF No. 28 at 5. In other words, Butch’s purports it is confused whether a fluid conduit 

is still “single” if it is made of, for example, multiple pipes and connection blocks arranged in 

series. Id. Claim 9 addresses this, stating, “the single fluid conduit includes: a first connection 

block positioned at the well fracturing tree; a second connection block; and one or more pipe 

sections coupled between the first and second connection block and the second connection block.” 

It is thus quite clear that multiple components attached in series may compose the “single fluid 

conduit” and that this “single fluid conduit” couples to4

 the fracturing tree so that fracturing fluid 

flows to the tree only through this “single fluid conduit.” ECF No. 27-1 ¶¶ 53–55. 

Finally, Butch’s argues that the claim is indefinite because the inventor could have written 

that “fracturing fluid is routed from the second connection block to the first connection block 

through the one or more pipe sections” rather than “fracturing fluid can be routed from the second 

connection block to the first connection block through the one or more pipe sections.” ECF 

No. 28 at 6 (emphasis added). It is unclear how this relates to definiteness. But Cameron’s choice 

 

4

 Butch’s also argues incorrectly that a POSITA would not understand the meaning of “coupled 

to.” ECF No. 28 at 7–8. This connection language is, and has always been, commonplace in patent 

claims, and a POSITA would well understand its scope in this context. Cf. Bradford Co. v. 

Conteyor N. Am., Inc., 603 F.3d 1262, 1270–71 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (construing “coupled to”); FisherPrice, Inc. v. Graco Children’s Prods., Inc., 154 F. App’x 903, 909 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (finding 

limitation requiring one element “coupled to” another not indefinite). 

Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 34-1 Filed 08/26/20 Page 35 of 64 Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 29 Filed 08/05/20 Page 9 of 24
 6 

of “can” rather than “is” clarifies that a system infringes Claim 9 if it is capable of routing fluid in 

the claimed manner because actual use is unnecessary for infringement. See 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). 

 The claim terms “fluid conduit” and “fracturing tree” are common names for “well-known 

industry components” that “perform[] conventional functions.” ECF No. 28 at 2. A POSITA would 

understand with reasonable certainty what it means to couple these two components in Claim 9. 

Id. ¶¶ 23, 54. Butch’s has therefore failed to show that the above claim terms are indefinite. 

2. “positioned at” 

Claim 9 

Cameron’s Proposed Construction Butch’s Proposed Construction

“attached to or adjacent to” Indefinite 

Claim 9 requires “a first connection block positioned at the well fracturing tree.” ECF 

No. 1-1 (emphasis added). This claim also requires that “fracturing fluid can be routed . . . to the 

well fracturing tree through the first connection block.” A POSITA would understand this to mean 

that the “first connection block” is attached to the fracturing tree (e.g., as part of the stack of valves 

comprising the fracturing tree), or is adjacent to the fracturing tree to facilitate the flow of 

fracturing fluid into the wellbore. See ECF No. 27-1, ¶¶ 68–69. This fits with the language of 

dependent claim 10, which further narrows the claim scope to require that the “first connection 

block” is “attached to a valve of the well fracturing tree.” 

Rather than seek meaning, Butch’s demands “boundaries of the relative spatial relationship 

between the first connection block and the tree” or the “distance from the tree the connection block 

can be arranged while still being positioned at the tree.” ECF No. 28 at 8. But this is not what 

definiteness requires.5

 Definiteness does not demand “absolute precision” because it “must take 

 

5

 Butch’s also cites Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Applera Corp. for the proposition that patents must 

provide a standard to measure terms of degree. ECF No. 28 at 9 (citing 599 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. 

Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 34-1 Filed 08/26/20 Page 36 of 64 Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 29 Filed 08/05/20 Page 10 of 24
 7 

into account the inherent limitations of language” and allow for “some modicum of uncertainty.” 

See Nautilus, 572 U.S. at 901. A POSITA can determine with reasonable certainty whether a 

connection block is “positioned at” (or “attached to or adjacent to”) a fracturing tree. ECF No. 27-

1 ¶ 69. Further, “positioned at” is a common phrase that any juror can understand and apply to 

resolve a factual dispute. See, e.g., Quest Diagnostics Invs., 2020 WL 210799, at *5 (finding 

“common words with common meaning” not indefinite). Claim construction (or definiteness) need 

not eliminate all potential factual disputes centered on terms with common meanings. See id.

Butch’s has offered no evidence that a POSITA would not understand what it means for a 

first connection block to be “positioned at” a well fracturing tree, and it has thus failed to show 

that the phrase “positioned at” is indefinite. The Court should adopt Cameron’s construction that 

“positioned at” in claim 9 means “attached to or adjacent to.” 

3. “comprising an additional well fracturing tree” 

Claim 12 

Cameron’s Proposed Construction Butch’s Proposed Construction

Plain and ordinary meaning: “adding another 

specific type of Christmas tree installed 

specifically for the fracturing process.” 

Indefinite 

The term “fracturing tree” has an ordinary and customary meaning in the art: it is a “specific 

type of Christmas tree installed specifically for the fracturing process.” ECF No. 27 ¶ 49. As a 

POSITA would understand, dependent claim 12 simply requires adding another fracturing tree 

consistent with the type of fracturing system described in independent claim 9. ECF No. 27-1 ¶ 55. 

In other words, independent claim 9 explains how to couple a fracturing tree to the 

fracturing system, and dependent claim 12 simply covers adding another fracturing tree in the same 

 

Cir. 2010)). The relevant term of degree in Enzo was “substantially.” 599 F.3d at 1335 (“not 

interfering substantially”). But Butch’s provides no authority to show that “at” is a term of degree. 

Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 34-1 Filed 08/26/20 Page 37 of 64 Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 29 Filed 08/05/20 Page 11 of 24
 8 

way. While Dr. Wooley confirms that a POSITA would understand this with reasonable certainty 

(Id. ¶ 23), Butch’s has provided no contrary evidence. The Court should thus find claim 12 not 

indefinite and construe this term as having its plain and ordinary meaning. 

B. ’645 Patent 

The ’645 patent teaches, among other things, systems and methods for providing a single 

rigid fluid pathway between a fracturing manifold and a fracturing tree, instead of multiple rigid 

fluid pathways (e.g., prior-art frac iron). ECF No. 1-2 at 9:25–28 (“Like some other embodiments 

described above, the fracturing system depicted in Fig. 11 uses only a single fluid conduit 26 per 

fracturing tree 20 rather than using multiple, smaller fluid conduits.”); ECF No. 27-1 ¶¶ 56–64. 

While some claims require adjustable components, not all do, including the asserted claims. 

And the specification teaches embodiments that do not require adjustable components. ECF No. 1-

2 at 8:37–43. For instance, these embodiments may comprise fixed components and involve 

“rotat[ing] [the pipes and connection blocks] to desired positions before assembling these 

components together (e.g., via studded connections).” Id.; ECF No. 27-1 ¶ 60. 

As with the ’132 patent, Butch’s strains the claim language and ignores the patent’s 

disclosures to formulate its indefiniteness arguments. But as Cameron explains below, the disputed 

claim terms are not indefinite. 

1. “one and only one rigid fluid pathway” 

Claims 1, 10, 20 

Cameron’s Proposed Construction Butch’s Proposed Construction

Plain and ordinary meaning Indefinite 

Independent claims 1, 10, and 20 describe fracturing systems where there is “one and only 

one rigid fluid pathway” between the fracturing manifold and any well (or fracturing tree) in the 

system. Comparing Claim 1 to Figure 11 (shown below), a single fluid conduit comprising several 

Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 34-1 Filed 08/26/20 Page 38 of 64 Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 29 Filed 08/05/20 Page 12 of 24
 9 

blue pipes (170, highlighted yellow) connect through 

blue connection blocks (172, highlighted green). ECF 

No. 27-1 ¶¶ 56–58 (citing ECF No. 1-2). 

A POSITA would thus understand that the 

single fluid conduit (blue) in the annotated Figure 11 

at left provides the “one and only one rigid fluid 

pathway” to the fracturing tree 20 (red). See id. ¶ 58 

(explaining that in Figure 11 “there is ‘one and only 

one rigid fluid pathway from the fracturing manifold 

to the fracturing tree’”). 

Butch’s is wrong that a POSITA would reach a different conclusion simply because 

claims 1 and 20 describe “a plurality of fluid conduits coupled between the fracturing manifold 

and the plurality of fracturing trees.” The claims clarify what this means: the “one and only one 

rigid fluid pathway” to the fracturing tree (or well) includes “at least one rigid fluid conduit” of 

this plurality of fluid conduits “so as to provide” the one and only one rigid fluid pathway. See, 

e.g., ECF No. 1-2 at claim 1. Setting aside Butch’s contention the patentee could have described 

this better (which is not the standard for indefiniteness), its meaning is reasonably certain. See ECF 

No. 27-1 ¶¶ 58–59 (explaining how a POSITA would understand these limitations). 

First, there must be a plurality of fluid conduits if there is a plurality of fracturing trees 

because each fracturing tree must have its own fluid pathway. See, e.g., ECF No. 1-2 at claim 1 

(“the one and only one rigid fluid pathway is not coupled to the fracturing manifold to provide the 

fracturing fluid from the fracturing manifold to any other fracturing tree”). 

Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 34-1 Filed 08/26/20 Page 39 of 64 Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 29 Filed 08/05/20 Page 13 of 24
 10 

Second, the claims allow that several of the plurality of fluid conduits may form the fluid 

pathway only if they together provide one and only one fluid pathway. See, e.g., id. (“coupled to 

the fracturing manifold by at least one rigid fluid conduit of the plurality of fluid conduits so as to 

provide one and only one rigid fluid pathway” (emphasis added)). For instance, Figure 11 above 

shows one and only one rigid fluid pathway (blue) comprising multiple pipes 170 connecting in 

series through the connection blocks 172. 

Third, the one and only one fluid pathway must be rigid. In the claims, rigid modifies the 

“fluid pathway” comprising one or more rigid fluid conduits. See, e.g., id. (requiring the plurality 

of fluid conduits must “provide one and only one rigid fluid pathway”). 

Dr. Wooley shares these understandings. See ECF No. 27-1 ¶¶ 58–59. Which is to say, a 

POSITA would understand this term with reasonable certainty. Id. ¶ 23. Butch’s nonetheless 

suggests this term is indefinite because (according to Butch’s) it might encompass two 

implementations: (1) those where there is only one fluid pathway to a fracturing tree, and that one 

fluid pathway is rigid; and (2) an amorphous hypothetical system that Butch’s proposes where 

there are multiple fluid pathways to the fracturing tree, only one of which is rigid. 

The first arrangement is not hypothetical—it is what Butch’s practices and part of 

Cameron’s commercial embodiment. The second hypothetical arrangement is something not at 

issue in any Butch’s arrangement or any prior art. Butch’s is thus seeking an indefiniteness ruling 

based on the argument that it is unclear to Butch’s if the claims cover an imagined, perhaps 

unworkable, embodiment that is not at issue. This cannot be the basis of indefiniteness. Nevro 

Corp., 955 F.3d at 41 (“The [indefiniteness] test is not merely whether a claim is susceptible to 

differing interpretations.”). 

Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 34-1 Filed 08/26/20 Page 40 of 64 Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 29 Filed 08/05/20 Page 14 of 24
 11 

Setting aside whether Butch’s is right that this term might encompass multiple 

implementations, claim language having “a reasonable range of implementations” is not indefinite. 

See Capital Sec. Sys., Inc. v. NCR Corp., 725 F. App’x 952, 957 (Fed. Cir. 2018). It is impossible 

to understand Butch’s hypothetical second implementation because the hypothetical is vague and 

incomplete. But if Butch’s is right that there is a second possible implementation, two is not an 

unreasonable range of potential implementations. It is rather the smallest possible range of multiple 

implementations. This cannot render the claims indefinite. 

As with Butch’s other arguments, it provides no evidence that a POSITA confronted with 

any implementation would fail to understand with reasonable certainty whether a given system 

includes one and only one rigid fluid pathway. Butch’s has thus not met its burden to show that 

this term renders the challenged claims invalid as indefinite. 

2. “at least one rigid fluid conduit” / “the at least one rigid fluid conduit” 

Claims 1, 20 

Cameron’s Proposed Construction Butch’s Proposed Construction

Plain and ordinary meaning Indefinite 

Claims 1 and 20 both introduce “a plurality of fluid conduits.” ECF No. 1-2. They go on 

to require coupling the fracturing manifold to the fracturing tree by “at least one rigid fluid conduit 

of the plurality of fluid conduits.” Id. The claims also require that “the at least one rigid fluid 

conduit” described earlier includes various elements, like pipe joints and connection blocks. Id.

The claims clarify that the “at least one rigid fluid conduit” must “provide one and only one rigid 

fluid pathway” between the fracturing manifold and the fracturing tree (or well). Id.

Despite this clear introduction, Butch’s argues that “‘the at least one rigid fluid conduit’ 

(emphasis added) lacks proper antecedent basis.” ECF No. 28 at 13. Not so. “[T]he at least one 

rigid fluid conduit” follows the claim introducing “at least one rigid fluid conduit of the plurality 

Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 34-1 Filed 08/26/20 Page 41 of 64 Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 29 Filed 08/05/20 Page 15 of 24
 12 

of fluid conduits.” Butch’s is also wrong “there is no reference back to ‘each fracturing tree’ or 

any provision of a connection to a specific ‘at least one rigid fluid conduit.’” Id. The claims explain 

that for “each fracturing tree” the “at least one rigid fluid conduit” connects “the fracturing 

manifold to the fracturing tree.” Id. (emphasis added). The claims also explain what the rigid fluid 

conduit must include (e.g., connection blocks and pipes). Id. 

As this shows, there is no reason a POSITA would not understand with reasonable certainty 

that the claims introduce “the at least one rigid fluid conduit” as being “of the plurality of fluid 

conduits.” Dr. Wooley agrees. ECF No. 27-1 ¶¶ 56–64 (applying this term), 67 (“[A] a POSITA 

would have understood all of these terms with reasonable certainty. . . . I have applied or explained 

many of these terms within the context of the patents, and with the understanding of a POSITA.”). 

The only authority Butch’s uses to suggest otherwise is Baldwin Graphic Sys., Inc. v. 

Siebert, Inc., 512 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2008). But Baldwin did not go Butch’s way. The 

Baldwin court found that the “[relevant] limitations . . . all relate to proper antecedent bases,” 

including a “said fabric roll” that related back to a plurality of fabric rolls introduced as “a presoaked fabric roll.” Id. at 1343. In other words, the Federal Circuit found that “a pre-soaked fabric 

roll” was a sufficient antecedent basis for multiple fabric rolls, of which one was the “said fabric 

roll.” See id. Butch’s provides no analysis for why the Federal Circuit would reach the opposite 

conclusion on these facts to find that “the at least one rigid fluid conduit” cannot have a proper 

antecedent basis as being “of the plurality of fluid conduits.” 

Even so, Butch’s arguments fail for a more fundamental reason: Butch’s has not met its 

high burden to show these claims are invalid as indefinite. While Cameron has provided evidence 

that a POSITA would understand this term with reasonable certainty, Butch’s has provided no 

Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 34-1 Filed 08/26/20 Page 42 of 64 Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 29 Filed 08/05/20 Page 16 of 24
 13 

evidence at all—much less clear and convincing evidence—only argument. The Court should thus 

find that this term is not indefinite and give it its plain and ordinary meaning. 

3. “pipe joints” 

Claim 1 

Cameron’s Proposed Construction Butch’s Proposed Construction 

“lengths of pipe” “structures for joining pipes” 

Claim 1 requires “a plurality of pipe joints and connection blocks coupled to one another,” 

and describes “the plurality of pipe joints and connection blocks” as including “a first pipe that is 

attached for a first connection block” 

and “a second pipe that is . . . attached 

to a second connection block.” ECF 

No. 1-2 (emphasis added). As this claim 

language shows, the “pipe joints” 

recited in the claim are lengths of pipe 

that are attached to connection blocks. 

ECF No. 27-1 ¶¶ 70–72. This is 

consistent with the specification, which 

in Figure 10 (shown at left) describes 

element 170 alternately as “pipe joints 

170” and “pipes 170.” See ECF No. 1-2 

at 8:29–43. Thus, the depicted “pipe 

joints 170” (blue) are lengths of pipe—exactly as in Cameron’s proposed construction. Id.6 

 

6

 The same is true in Figure 11, which also shows element 170 as lengths of pipe. 

Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 34-1 Filed 08/26/20 Page 43 of 64 Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 29 Filed 08/05/20 Page 17 of 24
 14 

Annotated Figure 12 at right similarly shows the same 

element (170, green) as a length of pipe. Butch’s argues that because the 

“rotatable pipe joint” shown in Figure 10 (above) contains a flange at the 

top end (rather than threading), which allows any component attached to 

the top end to rotate around the pipe’s axis, this somehow morphs what 

is plainly a length of pipe into a “structure for joining pipes.” Figure 12 

shows this “rotatable pipe joint” as a length of pipe (170) with a flanged 

end on top (182) and a threaded surface (184) on the bottom. ECF No. 1-

2 at 8:58–9:7. Element 170 shaded green (which the specification 

describes elsewhere as a pipe joint) clearly is a length of pipe. 

Butch’s argues that Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc. obligates the Court to 

ignore these clear disclosures because it should instead presume the claim means different things 

when it uses the words “pipe joints” instead of “pipes” to introduce “a first pipe” and “a second 

pipe.” ECF No. 28 at 14–15 (citing 527 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). But the presumption from 

Helmsderfer does not apply when there is “evidence to the contrary.” 527 F.3d 1379 at 1382 

(quoting CAE Screenplates Inc. v. Heinrich Fiedler GmbH, 224 F.3d 1308, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). 

As explained above, the claim language, the written specification, and the figures clarify that “pipe 

joints” means lengths of pipe, rebutting any such presumption. 

Lacking a toehold in fact or law, Butch’s pivots to misrepresenting Cameron’s position on 

the term “pipe joints” during an IPR of a related patent. ECF No. 28 at 15. Cameron did not take 

a different position in the IPR. Cameron said in the IPR that based on the petitioner’s read of 

Surjaatmadja’s Figure 17 (annotated below), which requires a straight run of a single pipe from 

Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 34-1 Filed 08/26/20 Page 44 of 64 Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 29 Filed 08/05/20 Page 18 of 24
 15 

the central manifold to the respective 

pads, it was not inherent to use elbows and 

pipe joints (i.e., multiple lengths of pipe). 

See ECF No. 28-4 (Surjaatmadja). Since 

there would be no change in direction 

because the figures (according to 

petitioner) show a single length of pipe 

(i.e., one pipe joint), this is a true statement and not inconsistent with Cameron’s position here. 

Butch’s proposed construction of “pipe joints” as “structures for joining pipes” is 

nonsensical in the oilfield in general and in this patent specifically. Reading Claim 1 with Butch’s 

construction would require joining connection blocks (which are structures joining lengths of pipe) 

with “structures for joining pipes,” while omitting the pipes themselves. This results in a series of 

only connection components. The construction is thus wrong because “[a] claim construction that 

renders asserted claims facially nonsensical ‘cannot be correct.’” Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. Tyco 

Healthcare Group, LP, 616 F.3d 1249, 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Schoenhaus v. Genesco, 

Inc., 440 F.3d 1354, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). 

Claim 1 clearly states that the plurality of pipe joints includes “a first pipe that is attached 

to a first connection block” and “a second pipe that is . . . attached to a second connection block.” 

The specification also uses “pipes” and “pipe joints” interchangeably to describe what plainly is a 

length of pipe in the patent figures (element 170). See ECF No. 1-2 at 8:29–43. And industry 

technical definitions confirm that lengths of pipe is an ordinary and customary meaning of “pipe 

joints” in the art. See, e.g., ECF No. 27–1 ¶ 74 (citing ECF No. 27-4 (defining “joint” as “length 

Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 34-1 Filed 08/26/20 Page 45 of 64 Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 29 Filed 08/05/20 Page 19 of 24
 16 

of pipe”) and ECF No. 27-12 (defining “joint” as “length of pipe”)). The Court should thus adopt 

Cameron’s proposed construction of “pipe joints.” 

4. “outlet branch(es)” 

Claims 2–4, 10, 13, 18 

Cameron’s Proposed Construction Butch’s Proposed Construction

Plain and ordinary meaning: “extension(s) 

from the shared trunk line” 

Indefinite 

The claims at issue for this term require outlet branches. For instance, claim 2 requires “a 

shared trunk conduit for routing fracturing fluid to multiple fracturing trees of the plurality of 

fracturing tree” and “outlet branches for routing fracturing fluid from the shared trunk conduit to 

individual fracturing trees of the multiple fracturing trees.” As Dr. Wooley confirms, a POSITA 

would understand this term to have its plain and ordinary meaning, which describes “extension(s) 

from the shared trunk line.” ECF No. 27-1 ¶ 63; see also ECF No. 1-2 at claims 3, 10 (“the 

fracturing fluid distribution manifold including a trunk line and multiple outlet branches in fluid 

communication with the trunk line for routing fracturing fluid from the trunk line toward the 

plurality of wells via the multiple outlet branches”), 13, 18. 

The specification confirms that the claims use “outlet branches” in accord with its plain 

and ordinary meaning to describe extensions from the shared trunk line. See, e.g., id. at 1:66–2:4 

(“In some instances, a fracturing manifold includes a trunk line for providing fracturing fluid to 

multiple outlet branches of the manifold. Further, the multiple outlet branches can include valves 

for controlling flow of fracturing fluid toward wells from the trunk line.”), Abstract (“The 

fracturing manifold can include a trunk line that provides fracturing fluid to multiple outlet 

branches, which can include valves for controlling flow of fracturing fluid to wells downstream of 

the valves.”); ECF No. 27-1 ¶¶ 62–64 (annotating outlet branches). 

Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 34-1 Filed 08/26/20 Page 46 of 64 Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 29 Filed 08/05/20 Page 20 of 24
 17 

Butch’s is wrong that this term is indefinite because of “structural ambiguity” about where 

an outlet branch is in the system. ECF No. 28 at 16. Where an outlet branch is in the system would 

be a fact issue that a factfinder could easily resolve applying a common, readily understandable 

term. Butch’s attorney argument about ambiguity provides no evidence a POSITA would fail to 

understand with reasonable certainty whether there is a branch at the outlet of a trunk line. 

Dr. Wooley, however, details how a POSITA would understand the structure of outlet branches. 

ECF No. 27-1 ¶¶ 62–64. Butch’s is likewise wrong that a POSITA would not understand with 

reasonable certainty where the fracturing manifold ends and the fluid conduit to the fracturing tree 

begins. As Dr. Wooley explains, a POSITA would have extensive knowledge and experience with 

the prior art and in the industry, including understanding how fracturing manifolds connect to 

fracturing trees using fluid conduits. Id. ¶¶ 33–51. 

Nor is it true that claims 3 and 18 are indefinite because they require that the “outlet 

branches . . . include valves.” The claim language is clear. Butch’s provides no authority (because 

none exists) for its proposition that the claim must enumerate a precise number of valves. And 

again, Butch’s provides no evidence to suggest a POSITA would not understand with reasonable 

certainty what it means for a fracturing manifold to have valves in its outlet branches. Given the 

evidence that a POSITA would understand this term with reasonable certainty (see, e.g., id. ¶ 23), 

the Court should find the term not indefinite and apply its plain and ordinary meaning. 

5. “the second connection block”; “the second pipe”; “the third studded connection” 

Claim 14 

Cameron’s Proposed Construction Butch’s Proposed Construction

Plain and ordinary meaning Indefinite 

The claims and the specification describe the terms “connection block,” “pipe,” and 

“studded connection,” including in various figures. See, e.g., ECF No. 27-1 ¶¶ 56–64 (describing 

Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 34-1 Filed 08/26/20 Page 47 of 64 Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 29 Filed 08/05/20 Page 21 of 24
 18 

and illustrating embodiments from the specification incorporating connection blocks, pipes, and 

studded connections). The Court should give all these terms their plain and ordinary meanings. 

Claim 14 depends from claim 10, which introduces “a second connection block,” “a second pipe,” 

and “a third studded connection.” Claim 14 simply requires a more specific arrangement of the 

second connection block, the second pipe, and the third studded connection introduced in claim 10. 

A POSITA would understand this arrangement with reasonable certainty. See ECF No. 27-1 ¶ 23. 

Butch’s is wrong that this term lacks an antecedent basis for the same reasons as in Section 

III.B.2, supra. As explained above, independent claim 10 introduces each term. And claim 10 uses 

these terms to describe the arrangement of components in the rigid fluid pathway for each 

respective fracturing tree. A POSITA would understand with reasonable certainty that claim 14 

describes the more specific arrangement for the components in the respective rigid fluid pathways 

of claim 10. Butch’s has produced no evidence otherwise. But see ECF No. 27-1 ¶ 23. As a result, 

the Court should find this term not indefinite. 

6. “the second pipe”; “the first pipe”; “the third pipe” 

Claim 14 

Cameron’s Proposed Construction Butch’s Proposed Construction

Plain and ordinary meaning Indefinite 

See Section III.B.5, supra. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

As the above discussion shows, a POSITA would understand all the identified terms with 

reasonable certainty. The Court should therefore find all the claims not indefinite; adopt 

Cameron’s proposed constructions for “positioned at” and “pipe joints”; and give the remaining 

terms their plain and ordinary meanings. 

 

Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 34-1 Filed 08/26/20 Page 48 of 64 Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 29 Filed 08/05/20 Page 22 of 24
 19 

DATED: August 5, 2020 Respectfully submitted, 

By: /s/ John R. Keville

John R. Keville 

Texas Bar No. 00794085 

jkeville@winston.com 

Merritt D. Westcott (Pro Hac Vice) 

Texas Bar No. 24027091 

mwestcott@winston.com 

William M. Logan 

Texas Bar No. 24106214 

wlogan@winston.com 

Evan D. Lewis (Pro Hac Vice) 

Texas Bar No. 24116670 

edlewis@winston.com 

WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 

800 Capitol Street, Suite 2400 

Houston, Texas 77002 

Telephone: (713) 651-2600 

Facsimile: (713) 651-2700 

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF, 

CAMERON INTERNATIONAL 

CORPORATION 

Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 34-1 Filed 08/26/20 Page 49 of 64 Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 29 Filed 08/05/20 Page 23 of 24
 20 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on the 5th day of August, 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing 

document with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of 

such filing to the following: 

David G. Henry, Sr. 

DHenry@GrayReed.com 

Eric S. Tautfest 

etautfest@GrayReed.com 

Jared Hoggan 

jhoggan@GrayReed.com 

GRAY REED & MCGRAW LLP 

900 Washington Avenue, Suite 800 

Waco, Texas 76701 

M. Jill Bindler 

jbindler@GrayReed.com 

David T. DeZern 

ddezern@GrayReed.com 

David M. Lisch 

dlisch@GrayReed.com 

GRAY REED & MCGRAW LLP 

1601 Elm Street, Suite 4600 

Dallas, Texas 75201 

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT BUTCH’S 

 RATHOLE & ANCHOR SERVICE, INC. 

/s/ John R. Keville 

John R. Keville 

Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 34-1 Filed 08/26/20 Page 50 of 64 Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 29 Filed 08/05/20 Page 24 of 24
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

WACO DIVISION 

CAMERON INTERNATIONAL 

CORPORATION, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

BUTCH’S RATHOLE & ANCHOR 

SERVICE, INC., 

Defendant. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-00124 

JURY TRIAL REQUESTED 

PLAINTIFF CAMERON INTERNATIONAL CORP.’S 

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION REPLY BRIEF 

Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 34-1 Filed 08/26/20 Page 51 of 64 Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 32 Filed 08/19/20 Page 1 of 14
 i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

I. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1

II. Disputed Claim Terms ........................................................................................................ 2

A. ’132 Patent .............................................................................................................. 2

1. “a single fluid conduit” / “a single fluid conduit coupled to the well fracturing 

tree” ............................................................................................................. 2

2. “positioned at” .................................................................................................... 3

3. “comprising an additional well fracturing tree”.................................................. 5

B. ’645 Patent .............................................................................................................. 6

1. “one and only one rigid fluid pathway” .............................................................. 6

2. “at least one rigid fluid conduit” / “the at least one rigid fluid conduit” ............ 7

3. “pipe joints” ........................................................................................................ 8

4. “outlet branch(es)” .............................................................................................. 9

5. “the second connection block”; “the second pipe”; “the third studded 

connection” ................................................................................................. 9

6. “the second pipe”; “the first pipe”; “the third pipe” ......................................... 10

III. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 10

 

Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 34-1 Filed 08/26/20 Page 52 of 64 Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 32 Filed 08/19/20 Page 2 of 14
 ii 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 

 Page(s) 

Cases 

CyWee Group, Ltd. v. Huawei Device Co. Ltd., 

No. 2:17-cv-00495, 2018 WL 6419484 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 6, 2018) ............................................6 

In re Gardner, 

427 F.2d 786 (C.C.P.A. 1970) ...................................................................................................6 

Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 

572 U.S. 898 (2014) ...................................................................................................................4 

Quest Diagnostics Invests. LLC v. Lab. Corp. of Am. Holdings, 

No. 18-1436, 2020 WL 210799 (D. Del. Jan. 14, 2020) ...........................................................2 

SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 

403 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2005)..................................................................................................6 

Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 

669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..................................................................................................2 

Ultimax Cement Mfg. Corp. v. CTS Cement Mfg. Corp., 

587 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2009)..................................................................................................7 

 

Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 34-1 Filed 08/26/20 Page 53 of 64 Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 32 Filed 08/19/20 Page 3 of 14
 1 

I. INTRODUCTION 

Butch’s proposes ten terms for construction. It contends nine are indefinite. Yet despite 

having the burden to prove indefiniteness by clear and convincing evidence, Butch’s provides no 

evidence. Butch’s instead relies only on attorney argument and tries to shift the burden onto 

Cameron to show that the claims are definite. Although that burden is not Cameron’s, it has 

nonetheless provided evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the 

claims’ respective scopes with reasonable certainty. This includes through the testimony of 

Dr. Gary R. Wooley, a person of ordinary skill in the art, who explains and applies the claim terms 

using his education and experience. Dr. Wooley supports his opinions with prior art, technical 

dictionaries, and industry textbooks. Given this record, the Court should find no terms indefinite. 

As to the one term for which Butch’s proposes a construction—pipe joints—Cameron has 

shown with intrinsic and extrinsic evidence that this term refers to lengths of pipe. The claim 

language introduces pipe joints as elements connecting to connection blocks, and it uses this 

introduction to describe more specific arrangements of pipes and connection blocks. The patentee 

describes the same element (170) interchangeably in the specification as “pipe joints” and “pipes.” 

The patent’s figures depict element 170 as lengths of pipe. And Dr. Wooley’s testimony and two 

industry dictionaries confirm that this accords with the term’s customary and ordinary use. 

Butch’s, by contrast, provides no intrinsic or extrinsic evidence to suggest that “pipe joints” 

means “structures for joining pipes.” Nor does it justify imposing a nonsensical construction that 

would require joining “structures for joining pipes” to connection blocks—which are themselves 

structures for joining pipes. The Court should thus reject Butch’s proposal and adopt Cameron’s. 

Finally, the Court should adopt Cameron’s proposal that “positioned at” means “attached 

to or adjacent to.” Butch’s proposes no alternative construction. Nor does it provide any evidence 

that Dr. Wooley is wrong about how a POSITA would understand this term. 

Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 34-1 Filed 08/26/20 Page 54 of 64 Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 32 Filed 08/19/20 Page 4 of 14
 2 

II. DISPUTED CLAIM TERMS 

A. ’132 Patent 

1. “a single fluid conduit” / “a single fluid conduit coupled to the well fracturing tree” 

Claim 9 describes a “well fracturing tree” and “a single fluid conduit coupled to the well 

fracturing tree.” ECF No. 1-1. The Court should apply plain and ordinary meaning because these 

are uncomplicated words, and because the patentee did not give them any special meaning. See, 

e.g., Quest Diagnostics Invests. LLC v. Lab. Corp. of Am. Holdings, No. 18-1436, 2020 WL 

210799, at *5 (D. Del. Jan. 14, 2020); cf. Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 

1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (noting plain and ordinary meaning applies absent a clear definition 

or a clear disavowal). Facing this simple language (and having no contrary evidence), Butch’s 

contrives three ambiguity theories based only on attorney argument. Each is wrong because it 

ignores the words in the claims and the knowledge and experience of a POSITA. 

First, Butch’s is wrong that a POSITA would not understand with reasonable certainty 

whether claim 9’s single fluid conduit means a single length of pipe or instead comprises several 

elements that together provide a single fluid conduit. The claim language requires a single fluid 

conduit comprising different elements (e.g., connection blocks and pipe sections). ECF No. 1-1 at 

claim 9. It also requires that the fracturing fluid flows to the well through only that single fluid 

conduit comprising those multiple elements. Id. A POSITA would understand this as distinct from 

prior-art systems that use multiple fluid conduits to provide multiple pathways, like frac iron. ECF 

No. 27-1 ¶¶ 30–32, 37–41, 51. And a POSITA would understand that fluid conduits often comprise 

multiple elements, like the pipe sections and hammer unions in prior-art frac iron. See id. 

Second, Butch’s is incorrect that the fluid conduit’s “structural composition” is not 

reasonably certain. ECF No. 30 at 9. Butch’s argues (without support) that a POSITA would not 

understand whether a particular fracturing tree couples to one fluid conduit or to multiple fluid 

Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 34-1 Filed 08/26/20 Page 55 of 64 Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 32 Filed 08/19/20 Page 5 of 14
 3 

conduits. ECF No. 28 at 5. This ignores common sense and a POSITA’s background working with 

fluid conduits, including prior-art frac iron. ECF No. 27-1 ¶¶ 30–32, 37–41, 51. From that 

background, a POSITA would understand that the single fluid conduit differentiates claim 9 from 

the multiple fluid conduit systems that provide multiple fluid pathways in the prior art. Id. Given 

this knowledge and experience, a POSITA would have no trouble determining with reasonable 

certainty whether a single fluid conduit (like in claim 9) or multiple fluid conduits (like prior-art 

frac iron) deliver fracturing fluid to a fracturing tree. See id. Butch’s offers no contrary evidence. 

Third, Butch’s is mistaken that a POSITA would not understand with reasonable certainty 

what it means to couple a fluid conduit to a fracturing tree. Butch’s agrees that fracturing trees are 

common oilfield equipment with a plain and ordinary meaning in the art. ECF No. 28 at 2. As 

Dr. Wooley explains, a POSITA would be familiar with coupling fluid conduits to fracturing trees 

from the prior art. ECF No. 27-1 ¶¶ 30–32, 37–41, 51. Butch’s offers no contrary evidence. There 

is thus no basis to find that a POSITA having the requisite knowledge and experience would not 

understand with reasonable certainty what it means to couple a fluid conduit to a fracturing tree. 

As the claim language and the knowledge and experience of a POSITA resolve all of 

Butch’s purported ambiguities, it has failed to show these terms are indefinite. 

2. “positioned at” 

Claim 9 requires “a first connection block positioned at the well fracturing tree.” ECF 

No. 1-1 (emphasis added). This claim also requires that “fracturing fluid can be routed . . . to the 

well fracturing tree through the first connection block.” A POSITA would understand this to mean 

that the “first connection block” is attached to the fracturing tree (e.g., as part of the stack), or is 

adjacent to the fracturing tree to facilitate flowing fracturing fluid into the wellbore. ECF No. 27-

1, ¶¶ 68–69. This accords with dependent claim 10, which further narrows the claim scope to 

require that the “first connection block” is “attached to a valve of the well fracturing tree.” Butch’s 

Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 34-1 Filed 08/26/20 Page 56 of 64 Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 32 Filed 08/19/20 Page 6 of 14
 4 

apparently disagrees with the proposition that the first connection block can be attached to the 

fracturing tree as part of the stack. But it does not propose any alternative constructions. 

Instead, Butch’s argues (without evidence) that a POSITA would not understand with 

reasonable certainty what it means to position a connection block at a fracturing tree. Butch’s 

premises this on its misunderstanding that definiteness requires “boundaries of the relative spatial 

relationship between the first connection block and the tree” and the “distance from the tree the 

connection block can be arranged while still being positioned at the tree.” ECF No. 28 at 8. But 

definiteness does not demand “absolute precision” because it “must take into account the inherent 

limitations of language” and allow for “some modicum of uncertainty.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig 

Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 899 (2014). 

The proper question is whether a POSITA would understand with reasonable certainty 

what it means for a connection block to be “positioned at” the fracturing tree. See id. As 

Dr. Wooley explains, a POSITA would be familiar with positioning valves, fluid conduits, and 

other equipment at the fracturing tree. See ECF No. 27-1, ¶¶ 68–69. Nothing in the record suggests 

a POSITA would not understand how to do so with a connection block. 

In the end, Butch’s has offered no evidence that suggests a POSITA would not understand 

with reasonable certainty what it means for a first connection block to be “positioned at” a well 

fracturing tree. It has thus failed to show that the term is indefinite. Butch’s has also not shown 

any clear disclaimer of scope that would justify excluding embodiments where the connection 

block is positioned at the fracturing tree as part of the stack of connections and valves, particularly 

given dependent claim 10 that requires attachment to a valve on the fracturing tree. The Court 

should therefore construe “positioned at” to mean “attached to or adjacent to.” 

Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 34-1 Filed 08/26/20 Page 57 of 64 Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 32 Filed 08/19/20 Page 7 of 14
 5 

3. “comprising an additional well fracturing tree” 

Claim 12 simply requires incorporating another fracturing tree into the system of claim 9. 

ECF No. 1-1. The term “fracturing tree” has an ordinary and customary meaning in the art: it is a 

“specific type of Christmas tree installed specifically for the fracturing process.” ECF No. 27-1 

¶ 49. Butch’s agrees that the term has a plain and ordinary meaning in the art. See ECF No. 28 at 

2. But Butch’s does not explain what it believes that meaning is, other than to say it disagrees with 

Cameron’s clarification. See ECF No. 30 at 12 n.10. 

Cameron’s clarification is important. As Dr. Wooley explains, fracturing sometimes takes 

place through standard Christmas trees, like production trees. ECF No. 27-1 ¶ 47. It is thus not 

inherent that if fracturing takes place through a tree, then the tree must be a fracturing tree. By 

clarifying that a fracturing tree is not a standard Christmas tree, the Court will give better guidance 

to the jury and will narrow the potential disputes between the parties. It will also honor the 

narrower scope the patentee chose by using the more specific term fracturing tree rather than more 

general terms like Christmas tree, production tree, wellhead, or well. 

That aside, dependent claim 12 is remarkably simple. It requires claim 9’s fracturing 

system to incorporate another fracturing tree. A POSITA who has relevant education and 

experience would understand how to add a fracturing tree to such a fracturing system—particularly 

given the instructions in claim 9. Butch’s attorney arguments to the contrary all ignore this 

education and experience, and insist the claim is indefinite because (according to Butch’s) a 

POSITA would not understand whether to add the fracturing tree using another single fluid 

conduit, or whether the fracturing tree may couple to the same single fluid conduit from claim 9. 

But claim 13 (which depends from claim 12) confirms that the patentee did not limit 

claim 12 to one of these proposals. Claim 13 limits the system to embodiments where the second 

fracturing tree couples to the single fluid conduit from claim 9. Because claim 12 is broader, it 

Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 34-1 Filed 08/26/20 Page 58 of 64 Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 32 Filed 08/19/20 Page 8 of 14
 6 

encompasses embodiments claim 13 excludes, such as those where the additional fracturing tree 

couples to another single fluid conduit. Reading claim 12 with this context—and given the 

instructions in claim 9 about how to configure a single fluid conduit—there is no reason a POSITA 

would not understand with reasonable certainty what it means to add an additional fracturing tree 

to claim 9’s fracturing system. As Butch’s has identified no clear disclaimers that would limit 

claim 12, the Court should find this term not indefinite and apply its plain and ordinary meaning. 

B. ’645 Patent 

1. “one and only one rigid fluid pathway” 

Claims 1, 10, and 20 describe fracturing systems having “one and only one rigid fluid 

pathway” between the fracturing manifold and a well (or fracturing tree). As Dr. Wooley explains, 

such a pathway is evident in Figure 11, where a single fluid conduit comprises several pipe 

joints 170 connecting through connection blocks 172. ECF No. 27-1 ¶¶ 56–58 (citing ECF No. 1-

2). A POSITA would understand that this system of pipe joints and connection blocks in Figure 11 

provides the “one and only one rigid fluid pathway” to fracturing tree 20. See id. ¶ 58. 

Butch’s still incorrectly contends that this term is indefinite. According to Butch’s, this is 

because it might have two embodiments: (1) preferred embodiments like Figure 11, where there is 

only one fluid pathway and that fluid pathway is rigid; and (2) other embodiments where there 

may be multiple fluid pathways, but only one of those fluid pathways is rigid. ECF No. 30 at 14. 

The Federal Circuit has long explained, however, that “[b]readth is not indefiniteness.” 

SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 403 F.3d 1331, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (quoting In re 

Gardner, 427 F.2d 786, 788 (C.C.P.A. 1970)). So even if Butch’s is right that these claims 

encompass two embodiments, “[t]hat the claim is drafted broadly enough to cover multiple 

embodiments does not render the claim indefinite.” CyWee Group, Ltd. v. Huawei Device Co. Ltd., 

No. 2:17-cv-00495, 2018 WL 6419484, at *20 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 6, 2018), *15 (“Merely because a 

Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 34-1 Filed 08/26/20 Page 59 of 64 Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 32 Filed 08/19/20 Page 9 of 14
 7 

claim is drafted broadly and could cover a variety of methods does not automatically render a 

claim indefinite.” (citing Ultimax Cement Mfg. Corp. v. CTS Cement Mfg. Corp., 587 F.3d 1339, 

1352 (Fed. Cir. 2009))). 

The correct question is whether a POSITA would understand the scope of the claim with 

reasonable certainty, not whether the plain and ordinary meaning might encompass multiple 

embodiments. As Dr. Wooley has shown, the meaning of “one and only one rigid fluid conduit” 

is well within a POSITA’s grasp. ECF No. 27-1 ¶¶ 58–59. Any dispute about whether a particular 

embodiment satisfies that limitation is a question for fact-finding, not claim construction. The 

Court should therefore find this term not indefinite and apply its plain and ordinary meaning. 

2. “at least one rigid fluid conduit” / “the at least one rigid fluid conduit” 

Claims 1 and 20 both introduce “a plurality of fluid conduits” and require coupling the 

fracturing manifold to the fracturing tree by “at least one rigid fluid conduit of the plurality of fluid 

conduits.” ECF No. 1-2. The claims also require that “the at least one rigid fluid conduit” they 

reference earlier includes various elements, like pipe joints and connection blocks. Id. The claims 

clarify that the “at least one rigid fluid conduit” must “provide one and only one rigid fluid 

pathway” between the fracturing manifold and the fracturing tree (or well). Id.

Given this language, Butch’s is wrong that the term “the at least one rigid fluid conduit” 

lacks an antecedent basis. A POSITA would understand with reasonable certainty that the claims 

introduce “the at least one rigid fluid conduit” as being “of the plurality of fluid conduits.” 

Dr. Wooley’s application accords with this understanding. See ECF No. 27-1 ¶¶ 56–64, 67. 

Butch’s has provided no contrary evidence, much less clear and convincing evidence. The Court 

should therefore find that this term is not indefinite and apply its plain and ordinary meaning. 

Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 34-1 Filed 08/26/20 Page 60 of 64 Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 32 Filed 08/19/20 Page 10 of 14
 8 

3. “pipe joints” 

Claim 1 requires “a plurality of pipe joints and connection blocks coupled to one another,” 

and describes “the plurality of pipe joints and connection blocks” as including “a first pipe that is 

attached for a first connection block” and “a second pipe that is . . . attached to a second connection 

block.” ECF No. 1-2 (emphasis added). As this shows, the “pipe joints” in the claim are lengths of 

pipe that attach to connection blocks. ECF No. 27-1 ¶¶ 70–72. This follows the specification’s 

description of element 170 as both “pipe joints 170” and “pipes 170.” See ECF No. 1-2 at 8:29–

43. These pipe joints/pipes 170 appear in various figures as lengths of pipe. See id. at Figs. 10–12. 

Dr. Wooley explains, with the support of technical dictionaries, that using “pipe joints” to mean 

“lengths of pipe” adheres to ordinary and customary use in the industry. ECF No. 27–1 ¶ 74 (citing 

ECF No. 27-4 (defining “joint” as “length of pipe”); ECF No. 27-12 (defining “joint” as “length 

of pipe”)). The intrinsic and extrinsic evidence thus confirm Cameron’s proposal: the term “pipe 

joints” means “lengths of pipe.” 

In contrast, Butch’s provides no support for its proposal that the term “pipe joints” means 

“structures for joining pipes.” Butch’s does not identify any support in the specification. Nor does 

Butch’s provide a single piece of extrinsic evidence that suggests its proposal reflects an ordinary 

and customary use in the industry. And Butch’s proposal is inconsistent with the claim language, 

as it would produce a nonsensical construction that requires connecting “structures for joining 

pipes” to connection blocks, which are themselves structures for joining pipes. 

Butch’s is also wrong that the specification limits “pipe joints 170” to adjustable 

embodiments. Figure 12 shows element 170 as a length of pipe, and separately labels the optional 

adjustable element as swivel ring 176. Dependent claims (e.g., claim 5) introduce the adjustability 

limitations, and Butch’s has shown no explicit definition or clear disavowal of claim scope that 

Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 34-1 Filed 08/26/20 Page 61 of 64 Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 32 Filed 08/19/20 Page 11 of 14
 9 

would justify reading those limitations into claim 1, as it suggests. The Court should therefore 

adopt Cameron’s proposal and construe “pipe joints” as “lengths of pipe.” 

4. “outlet branch(es)” 

Some claims require the fracturing manifold to include extensions from the shared trunk 

line. The claims describe these extensions as outlet branches. Claim 2, for example, requires “a 

shared trunk conduit for routing fracturing fluid to multiple fracturing trees of the plurality of 

fracturing trees” and “outlet branches for routing fracturing fluid from the shared trunk conduit to 

individual fracturing trees of the multiple fracturing trees.” This tracks claim 10, which describes 

a “fracturing fluid distribution manifold including a trunk line and multiple outlet branches.” See

ECF No. 1-2 at claims 10 (emphasis added), 2–3, 13, 18. The specification confirms that “outlet 

branches” means extensions of the manifold from the shared trunk line. See, e.g., id. at 1:66–2:4 

(describing the trunk line as delivering fracturing fluid to “outlet branches of the manifold”). 

Dr. Wooley confirms that this would be a POSITA’s understanding. ECF No. 27-1 ¶ 63. 

Dr. Wooley annotates one embodiment of outlet branches in Figure 10. Id. ¶¶ 62–64. Butch’s 

admits Figure 3 shows another consistent embodiment. ECF No. 30 at 19. Nothing other than 

Butch’s bare attorney argument suggests that a POSITA would not understand with reasonable 

certainty where a fracturing manifold ends and where a fluid conduit to the fracturing tree begins. 

Rather, as Dr. Wooley explains, a POSITA would have extensive education and experience with 

the prior art, including with connecting fracturing manifolds to fracturing trees using fluid 

conduits. ECF No. 27-1 ¶¶ 33–51. The Court should therefore find this term not indefinite. 

5. “the second connection block”; “the second pipe”; “the third studded connection” 

Independent claim 10 introduces “a second connection block,” “a second pipe,” and “a 

third studded connection.” Claim 14 simply requires a more specific arrangement of these 

components. Butch’s is wrong that this does not provide a proper antecedent basis. Instead, as 

Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 34-1 Filed 08/26/20 Page 62 of 64 Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 32 Filed 08/19/20 Page 12 of 14
 10 

Dr. Wooley explains, a POSITA would understand this arrangement with reasonable certainty. 

See ECF No. 27-1 ¶ 23. The Court should therefore find these terms not indefinite. 

6. “the second pipe”; “the first pipe”; “the third pipe” 

Claim 10 introduces a system including “a first pipe,” “a second pipe,” and “a third pipe.” 

Dependent claim 15 limits claim 10’s system to a specific arrangement of those elements. Given 

the introductions in claim 10, Butch’s is wrong that these terms lack an antecedent basis in 

dependent claim 15. See ECF No. 27-1 ¶ 23. The Court should thus find these terms not indefinite. 

III. CONCLUSION 

As the above discussion shows, a POSITA would understand all the identified terms with 

reasonable certainty. The Court should therefore find all the claims not indefinite; adopt 

Cameron’s proposed constructions for “positioned at” and “pipe joints”; and give the remaining 

terms their plain and ordinary meanings. 

DATED: August 19, 2020 Respectfully submitted, 

By: /s/ John R. Keville

John R. Keville 

Texas Bar No. 00794085 

jkeville@winston.com 

Merritt D. Westcott (Pro Hac Vice) 

Texas Bar No. 24027091 

mwestcott@winston.com 

William M. Logan 

Texas Bar No. 24106214 

wlogan@winston.com 

Evan D. Lewis (Pro Hac Vice) 

Texas Bar No. 24116670 

edlewis@winston.com 

WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 

800 Capitol Street, Suite 2400 

Houston, Texas 77002 

Telephone: (713) 651-2600 

Facsimile: (713) 651-2700 

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF, 

CAMERON INTERNATIONAL 

CORPORATION 

Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 34-1 Filed 08/26/20 Page 63 of 64 Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 32 Filed 08/19/20 Page 13 of 14
 11 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on the 19th day of August, 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing 

document with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of 

such filing to the following: 

David G. Henry, Sr. 

DHenry@GrayReed.com 

Eric S. Tautfest 

etautfest@GrayReed.com 

Jared Hoggan 

jhoggan@GrayReed.com 

GRAY REED & MCGRAW LLP 

900 Washington Avenue, Suite 800 

Waco, Texas 76701 

M. Jill Bindler 

jbindler@GrayReed.com 

David T. DeZern 

ddezern@GrayReed.com 

David M. Lisch 

dlisch@GrayReed.com 

GRAY REED & MCGRAW LLP 

1601 Elm Street, Suite 4600 

Dallas, Texas 75201 

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT BUTCH’S 

 RATHOLE & ANCHOR SERVICE, INC. 

/s/ John R. Keville 

John R. Keville 

Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 34-1 Filed 08/26/20 Page 64 of 64 Case 6:20-cv-00124-ADA Document 32 Filed 08/19/20 Page 14 of 14