FUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

WACO DIVISION 

CAMERON INTERNATIONAL 

CORPORATION, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

NITRO FLUIDS L.L.C., 

Defendant. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-00125 

JURY TRIAL REQUESTED 

 

PLAINTIFF CAMERON INTERNATIONAL CORP.’S 

OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF 
 i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

I. Introduction And Summary of the Argument ..................................................................... 1

II. Background and Asserted Patents ....................................................................................... 3

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

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

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

1. Prior-art frac iron—multiple fluid pathways .............................................. 5

2. Cameron’s single fluid conduit—one and only one fluid pathway ............ 6

a. ’132 Patent ...................................................................................... 7

b. ’645 Patent ...................................................................................... 7

III. Legal Standards ................................................................................................................... 9

A. The Court Should Give Terms Their Plain and Ordinary Meanings Unless the 

Patentee Set Forth a Clear Definition or Made a Clear Disavowal of Claim Scope.

................................................................................................................................. 9

B. The Court Should Not Limit the Claims to Preferred Embodiments nor Read 

Limitations into Independent Claims from Dependent Claims. ............................. 9

C. Nitro Has the Burden to Show Indefiniteness by Clear and Convincing Evidence.

............................................................................................................................... 10

IV. Claim Terms...................................................................................................................... 11

A. ’132 Patent ............................................................................................................ 11

1. “fracturing tree” / “fracturing trees” ......................................................... 11

2. “fracturing operation” ............................................................................... 14

3. “fluid conduit” .......................................................................................... 15

4. “a first connection block positioned at the well fracturing tree” .............. 16

5. “connection block” .................................................................................... 17

B. ’645 Patent ............................................................................................................ 18

1. “fracturing manifold / fracturing fluid distribution manifold” ................. 18
 ii 

2. “fracturing tree” / “fracturing trees” ......................................................... 19

3. “rigid fluid pathway” ................................................................................ 19

V. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 20
 iii 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 

 Page(s) 

Cases 

Aristocrat Techs. Australia Pty Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech., 

709 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2013)................................................................................................11 

Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. Covidien, Inc., 

796 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2015)..........................................................................................10, 16 

Finjan, Inc. v. Secure Computing Corp., 

626 F.3d 1197 (Fed. Cir. 2010)................................................................................................14 

Myco Indus., Inc. v. BlephEx, LLC, 

955 F.3d 1 (Fed. Cir. 2020) .........................................................................................10, 15, 19

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

572 U.S. 898 (2014) .................................................................................................................10 

Phillips v. AWH Corp., 

415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)................................................................................9, 11, 15, 17 

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

844 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2017)................................................................................................10 

WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp., 

889 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..................................................................................................9 

Statutes 

35 U.S.C. § 112(b) .........................................................................................................................10 
 iv 

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 MCGRAW-HILL DICTIONARY OF SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL TERMS (6th ed. 2003) 

M Petition, Nitro Fluids LLC v. Cameron Int’l Corp., IPR2019-00852 

N Declaration of John W. Ely from IPR2019-00852 (March 20, 2019) 

O MICHAEL J. ECONOMIDES AND TONY MARTIN, MODERN FRACTURING (2007) 

P Hydraulic Fracturing, SCHLUMBERGER OILFIELD GLOSSARY

Q U.S. Patent Publ. No. 2019/0383125 A1 (“Koricanek”) 

R Reserved

S THE CONCISE OXFORD DICTIONARY (10th ed. 1999) 

T Final Written Decision, Nitro Fluids LLC v. Cameron Int’l Corp., IPR2019-00852 
 1 

I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT 

Nitro contends the Court needs to construe eight terms. Of the eight, Nitro contends one is 

indefinite, and proposes limiting constructions for the remaining seven. This includes simple terms 

like “fracturing operation” and “connection block.” But there are no definitions in the patent nor 

any disavowals of claim scope that support Nitro’s proposed limiting constructions for these terms. 

Nor is there any indication that a person of ordinary skill in the art, with the requisite experience 

and education, would not understand what a “fracturing operation” or a “connection block” is 

within the context of the claims. Nitro is instead improperly asking the Court to read limitations 

from disclosed embodiments into the claims. The Court should reject this request and instead apply 

the plain and ordinary meaning of these terms. 

Nitro is also wrong that “a first connection block positioned at the well fracturing tree” is 

indefinite. Nitro does not contend that “connection block” or “fracturing tree” are indefinite; it 

separately proposes constructions for both. Instead, Nitro contends a person of ordinary skill in the 

art would not understand what it means to position a connection block at a fracturing tree. First, 

there is nothing difficult or even imprecise about this term. Moreover, as Dr. Gary Wooley 

explains,1

 a person of ordinary skill in the art would be familiar with positioning various 

components—like frac heads, blowout preventers, and fluid conduits—at fracturing trees. There 

is no basis to argue such a person would not understand with reasonable certainty what it means 

to position a connection block at a fracturing tree. 

As to the terms “fluid conduit” and “rigid fluid pathway,” Nitro proposes reading 

“adjustment joint” or “swivel joint” limitations into these terms. But Nitro is simply trying to read 

1

 Dr. Wooley is a person of ordinary skill in the art (a “POSITA”). See Ex. A, ¶¶ 2–11. 
 2 

embodiments into the claims to create a noninfringement position. These limitations appear 

nowhere in the asserted claims. And the same limitations Nitro is seeking to read into the asserted 

independent claims—adjustment joints and swivel joints—are added as limitations in various 

unasserted dependent claims, showing that the patentee knew how to use these as claim terms 

when the patentee chose to do so. There are also no express or implied definitions in either 

specification that support Nitro’s constructions. The Court should therefore construe these terms 

to have their full scopes in accord with their plain and ordinary meanings. 

For “fracturing manifold” and ‘fracturing tree,” Nitro is similarly trying to use contorted 

constructions to bolster its invalidity positions. There is no definition of either term in the 

respective specifications. Industry definitions and treatises confirm that the ordinary and 

customary meaning of fracturing manifold in the art is “a series of pipes, connections, and valves 

that direct fracturing fluid from a fracturing fluid supply to individual wells.” They also confirm 

that the ordinary and customary meaning of fracturing tree is “a specific type of Christmas tree 

installed specifically for the fracturing process,” which differentiates it from ordinary Christmas 

trees, like production trees. 

Nitro nonetheless contends that the fracturing manifold of the invention is atypical and 

does not include valves, and that a fracturing tree of the invention is simply a valve at the wellhead. 

Nitro does so in an attempt to read ill-fitting prior art onto the claims, including other types of 

manifolds (like centralized distribution manifolds that bring fluids to worksites), and fracturing 

systems that use different types of trees (like production trees with tree savers). There are no 

disclosures in the intrinsic record that support Nitro’s positions, and accordingly the Court should 

instead apply the ordinary and customary meanings in the art, as Cameron proposes. 
 3 

II. BACKGROUND AND ASSERTED PATENTS 

As Dr. Wooley explains more thoroughly in his declaration, 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. See

Ex. A, ¶¶ 27–32. This dispute concerns three components of modern fracturing: fracturing 

manifolds, fracturing trees, and the fluid conduits that connect them. 

A. Fracturing Manifolds 

A fracturing manifold is a series of pipes, connections, and valves that directs 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”); see also Ex. D (defining “manifold” 

accordingly). The illustration at left shows how 

fracturing manifolds can simplify fracturing 

multiple wells by allowing operators to make 

connections 52 (yellow highlighted number) 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 flow of 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 outlet and its respective well are complex 
 4 

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. 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. An operator installs the Christmas tree on top of a wellhead assembly, which also 

includes valves and adapters. Ex. A, ¶¶ 42–43; Ex. F, CMRN000960. 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; Ex. D. 

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. Operators can avoid these 

costly and dangerous failures 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. 

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

Ex. A, ¶¶ 48–50; Ex. J. Although fracturing 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. 
 5 

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.

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. Crosses or tees at the outlet of prior-art 

fracturing manifolds may provide outlets for 

connecting multiple pieces of frac iron. Ex. E, Fig. 1, 

[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; Ex. J. Frac heads include multiple inlets for 

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

The figure at right shows how frac iron lines 

running between the flow cross at the fracturing 
 6 

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. 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, 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”) solve the 

above problems by, among other things, simplifying the connections to fracturing trees. 
 7 

a. ’132 Patent 

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

differences” when connecting fracturing trees. See, e.g., ECF No. 1-1 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 ECF No. 1-1 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. 

b. ’645 Patent 

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

a single rigid fluid pathway between a fracturing manifold 

and a fracturing tree instead of prior-art frac iron. See, e.g., 

ECF No. 1-2 at 9:25–28; Ex. A, ¶¶ 56–64. Annotated 

Figure 11 at left reflects one such embodiment. Id.; ECF 

No. 1-2 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., 
 8 

element 20 (red)), and a plurality of fluid conduits (e.g., the blue-shaded element). 

The plurality of fluid conduits couples the fracturing manifold to the fracturing trees. Id. 

An individual fluid conduit to a fracturing tree can comprise one or more rigid components in 

series (as with the six pipes 170 and five connection blocks 172 in Figure 11). Id. But Claim 1 

requires that there be 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 

rigid fluid pathways between the fracturing manifold and the fracturing tree. Ex. A, ¶¶ 57–63. 

Claim 1 further requires that the rigid fluid pathway include 

pipe joints (e.g., pipes 170 in the Figure 11 embodiment) and 

connection blocks. ECF No. 1-2 at Claim 1. Although some 

unasserted dependent claims (e.g., Claims 5–6) require adjustment 

joints, claim 1 does not. Id. Claim 1 does require a specific 

arrangement of pipes and connection blocks, as in the annotated 

Figure 11 at right. Ex. A, ¶¶ 60–61. In this exemplary embodiment, 

claim 1 encompasses “a first pipe [green arrow] that is attached to a first connection block [yellow 

arrow] via a first flanged connection [purple arrow].” ’645 Patent at Claim 1. It further comprises 

“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. 

* * * * * 
 9 

The advantages of the Asserted Patents are evident from comparing Cameron’s commercial 

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

III. LEGAL STANDARDS 

A. The Court Should Give Terms Their Plain and Ordinary Meanings Unless the 

Patentee Set Forth a Clear Definition or Made a Clear Disavowal of Claim Scope. 

Although this Court has explained the claim construction standards well in other cases, 

Nitro’s proposals run counter and warrant repeating some principles. To begin, the Court should 

not construe terms (like “fracturing operation” or “fluid conduit”) that a POSITA would 

understand without a construction. Courts must instead generally give claim terms their plain and 

ordinary meanings. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). The 

only two exceptions to this rule arise when the patentee provides a clear definition of a term or 

makes a clear and unmistakable disavowal of claim scope. See id. 

B. The Court Should Not Limit the Claims to Preferred Embodiments nor Read 

Limitations into Independent Claims from Dependent Claims. 

The Court should not read limitations into the claims from preferred embodiments in the 

specification. “[A]lthough the specification often describes very specific embodiments of the 

invention, [the Federal Circuit has] repeatedly warned against confining the claims to those 

embodiments.” 415 F.3d at 1323. It has also “rejected the contention that if a patent describes only 

a single embodiment, the claims of the patent must be construed as being limited to that 
 10 

embodiment.” Id. In other words, “[i]t is well established that claims are not limited to preferred 

embodiments, unless the specification clearly indicates otherwise.” WesternGeco LLC v. ION 

Geophysical Corp., 889 F.3d 1308, 1323–24 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Additionally, added limitations in 

dependent claims should not be read into independent claims absent a clear disclosure otherwise. 

See, e.g., Myco Indus., Inc. v. BlephEx, LLC, 955 F.3d 1, 14 (Fed. Cir. 2020). 

C. Nitro Has the Burden to Show Indefiniteness by Clear and Convincing Evidence. 

Because indefiniteness attacks the validity of a patent, Nitro has the burden to show 

indefiniteness by clear and convincing evidence. Sonix Tech. Co., Ltd. v. Publ’ns Int’l, Ltd., 844 

F.3d 1370, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Definiteness, or overcoming an indefiniteness challenge, does 

not demand absolute precision, only reasonable certainty. See Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, 

Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 901 (2014) (interpreting 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)). Nitro thus has the heavy burden 

to show that the “claims, read in light of the specification delineating the patent, and the 

prosecution history, fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope 

of the invention.” Id. Nitro cannot meet this burden for terms describing concepts that a POSITA 

would be familiar with from experience and education in the art. See, e.g., Ethicon Endo-Surgery, 

Inc. v. Covidien, Inc., 796 F.3d 1312, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (reversing indefiniteness finding when 

a POSITA would understand the meaning from “basic concepts of physics and mathematics”). 
 11 

IV. CLAIM TERMS 

A. ’132 Patent 

1. “fracturing tree” / “fracturing trees” 

Claims 9, 12 

Cameron’s Proposed Construction Nitro’s Proposed Construction

ordinary and customary meaning in the art, 

which is: “a specific type of Christmas tree 

installed specifically for the fracturing 

process” 

“a wellhead assembly having at least one 

valve that can control the flow of fluid during 

a fracturing operation” 

The Court should give the term “fracturing tree” its ordinary and customary meaning in the 

art: “a specific type of Christmas tree installed specifically for the fracturing process.” There is no 

indication in the ’132 Patent that the patentee meant to ascribe a meaning to this term other than 

its plain and ordinary meaning in the industry. Yet Nitro tries to construe fracturing tree as a 

wellhead assembly, which is a distinct assembly that does not require a tree at all.2 

Claim 9 describes the “well fracturing tree” as part of a ‘fracturing system” and explains 

that “fracturing fluid is delivered to the well fracturing tree.” ECF No. 1-1. The specification 

discloses that a fracturing tree may couple to a fracturing manifold and is on the wellhead to 

provide fracturing fluid to the well. See, e.g., ECF No. 1-1 at 1:43–54, 1:65–67, 4:28–38. In other 

words, a fracturing tree is a separate piece of equipment on the wellhead. 

Because the intrinsic record does not provide any special definition of “fracturing tree,” 

the court may refer to industry definitions and treatises “to inform its understanding of the 

‘ordinary and customary’ meaning.” Aristocrat Techs. Australia Pty Ltd. v. Int'l Game Tech., 709 

2

 If Nitro’s proposed construction instead read “a tree having at least one valve that can control 

the flow of fracturing fluid during a fracturing operation,” Cameron would be agreeable to this 

alternative construction. 
 12 

F.3d 1348, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2013); Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1322–23. Industry publications differentiate 

fracturing trees from other oilfield trees, and from wellheads. The publications confirm that typical 

oilfield trees, called Christmas trees, are rated for production pressures, not fracturing pressures. 

For instance, industry publications define a “Christmas tree” as “the control valves, pressure 

gauges and chokes assembled at the top of a well to control the flow of oil and gas after the well 

has been drilled.” Ex. I at CAMN001905 (emphasis added); Ex. L at CAMN002309; Ex. D at 

CAMN002063; Ex. F. at CAMN002630. Industry treatises confirm that fracturing through a 

standard Christmas tree requires intervening equipment, like “tree savers” that “can protect a 

Christmas tree at the wellhead from damage and the possible failure that results from exposure to 

high pressure, corrosive fluids or abrasive proppant-laden fluids.” See Ex. H at CAMN001958. 

By contrast, a “fracturing tree” is defined as “[a] Christmas tree installed specifically for 

the fracturing process.” Ex. J. A fracturing tree is “one that has a higher pressuring rating” than a 

standard Christmas tree such that it can withstand fracturing pressures without intervening 

isolation equipment, like a tree saver. See Ex. H at CAMN001958. This is how Dr. Wooley 

confirms a POSITA would understand the term (Ex. A at ¶¶ 42–51), and how Nitro and its expert, 

John Ely, have previously described the term “fracturing tree.” See Ex. M at CAMN000486 (“A 

fracturing or frac tree is a specific type of Christmas tree installed specifically for the fracturing 

process.” (Nitro));3

 Ex. N at CAMN000599–0600 (“This term has a generally accepted meaning 

in the field. Specifically, a fracturing tree, also called a frac tree or a frac stack, is a specific type 

of ‘Christmas tree’ which is installed to facilitate a fracturing job. . . . Generally the frac tree will 

3

 Although the IPR dealt with a different patent with distinct claims, Nitro’s statements about the 

plain and ordinary meaning of certain terms are notable because they differ from its positions here. 
 13 

be removed and replaced by a standard Christmas tree for production.” (Ely)).4

Nitro’s construction of “fracturing tree” has changed because it needs its newly proposed 

(and incorrect) construction to fit its prior art, some of which disclose the use of production trees 

during fracturing operations. But its new construction does not fit with a POSITA’s understanding, 

and effectively reads the term “tree” completely out of the construction. 

This is evident from the colorized figure of a Christmas tree and wellhead assembly at right 

from an industry textbook. See Ex. F at CAMRN002629. The 

“tree” (red) is a specific component on the wellhead assembly. 

See Ex. F at CAMN002628. Below the tree, the wellhead 

assembly also includes various valves that control the flow of 

fluid to and from the well. See id. at CAMN002629; Ex A ¶¶ 42–

51. This includes in the tubinghead spool assembly (blue), the 

casinghead spool assembly (purple), and the casinghead seat 

assembly (orange). See id. at CAMN002628–630; Ex. A ¶¶ 42–

51. The same industry textbook also confirms that “[d]ifferent 

Christmas trees have different uses including oil production 

. . . and fracturing and acidizing.” See Ex. F at CAMN002630; Ex. J; Ex. A, ¶¶ 42–51. 

Nitro’s new proposal to construe fracturing tree as merely a valve at the wellhead is 

4

 The PTAB ultimately did not construe the term “fracturing tree.” But it did “determine that a 

fracturing tree is a tree used to facilitate a fracturing process, and does not require a tree of a 

particular size or weight or a tree that is temporarily installed only for the fracturing process.” 

Ex. T at 20. Cameron does not contend the term “fracturing tree” includes limitations about 

particular sizes or weights. Cameron simply seeks to clarify that fracturing trees are a specific type 

of Christmas tree and are not typical production trees. 
 14 

incorrect and would obviate the requirement of a “tree.” Nitro’s proposal would also improperly 

broaden “fracturing tree” to encompass all Christmas trees and, even more broadly, all wellheads. 

The Court should thus construe “fracturing tree” to have its ordinary and customary meaning: “a 

specific type of Christmas tree installed specifically for the fracturing process.” 

2. “fracturing operation” 

Claim 9 

Cameron’s Proposed Construction Nitro’s Proposed Construction

plain and ordinary meaning “an act of injecting fluid into a well to create 

man-made fractures in a hydrocarbon bearing 

formation” 

The Court should apply the plain and ordinary meaning to the term “fracturing operation.” 

There is no special definition in the intrinsic record, and a POSITA, having substantial experience 

with fracturing operations, would not need one. See Ex. A, ¶¶ 74–78; Ex. N at CAMN000596 

(Nitro’s expert opining that a POSITA “would have a minimum of three years of experience” with 

fracturing). A POSITA would be familiar with entire textbooks devoted to fracturing (see, e.g., 

Ex. H at CAMN001949–961; Ex. O at CAMN001964–969) and would understand that “fracturing 

operations” generally refers to hydraulic fracturing. See, e.g., Ex. P (defining “hydraulic 

fracturing”); Ex. D at CAMN002124 (defining “fracturing”). The Court need not construe this 

term. See Finjan, Inc. v. Secure Computing Corp., 626 F.3d 1197, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (finding 

no error when a district court rejected defendant’s proposed construction and adopted plain and 

ordinary meaning). This term should be accorded its plain and well-known ordinary meaning. 
 15 

3. “fluid conduit” 

Claim 9 

Cameron’s Proposed Construction Nitro’s Proposed Construction

plain and ordinary meaning “channel for conveying fluid, comprising an 

adjustment joint or pivot joint” 

The Court should also apply the plain and ordinary meaning to the simple term “fluid 

conduit.” Claim 9 describes it as an element through which “fracturing fluid is delivered to the 

well fracturing tree.” ECF No. 1-1. There is no alternative definition or disavowal of claim scope 

in the intrinsic record. This use in the claims tracks industry definitions that describe a conduit as 

a “channel through which fluid flows.” Ex. I at CAMN001906 (defining “conduit”), 

CAMN002121 (defining “fluid flow”); Ex. L at CAMN002310 (defining “conduit”). It also 

accords with Dr. Wooley’s understanding of the term. Ex. A, ¶¶ 79–84. 

Nitro improperly attempts to add “adjustment joint” and “pivot joint” limitations into this 

claim term, but the specification makes clear that not all embodiments contain those joints. ECF 

No. 1-1 at 2:2–3, 3:63–4:4, 4:55–5:3. It is improper to read these limitations into the claims from 

certain embodiments in the specification when the claims do not require these components. There 

are multiple embodiments in the specification, but even if adjustment joints and pivot joints were 

shown in the only embodiment in the patent, Nitro would still be wrong. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 

1323. The Court should not create adjustability limitations in the term “fluid conduit.” 

Claim differentiation also demonstrates that a “fluid conduit” does not include adjustment 

or pivot joints. Claim 11, which depends from claim 9, adds “at least one adjustment joint” as a 

claim limitation. When a dependent claim adds a limitation, there is a presumption that the 

limitation is not present in the independent claim. Myco Indus., 955 F.3d at 14. Nitro’s proposal 

that adds the limitations of dependent claims into an independent claim cannot be correct. The 
 16 

Court should therefore reject it and apply the plain and ordinary meaning. 

4. “a first connection block positioned at the well fracturing tree” 

Claim 9 

Cameron’s Proposed Construction Nitro’s Proposed Construction

plain and ordinary meaning Indefinite 

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

Patent at Claim 9 (emphasis added). This claim 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 adjacent to the fracturing tree (e.g., attached to the 

fracturing tree by a valve), to facilitate the flow of fracturing fluid into the wellbore. See Ex. A, 

¶¶ 85–90. This fits with dependent Claim 10, which requires that the connection block be “attached 

to a valve of the well fracturing tree.” 

Nitro is wrong that this term is indefinite. A POSITA with the requisite education and 

experience would understand with reasonable certainty what it means to position something at a 

fracturing tree. For instance, a POSITA would be familiar with positioning frac heads, valves, and 

conduits at the fracturing tree. See Ex. A, ¶¶ 85–90; Ex. J; Ex. K. Terms like this that a POSITA 

would understand based on their education and experience are not indefinite. See, e.g., Ethicon, 

796 F.3d at 1318. The Court should therefore find this term not indefinite and should apply its 

plain and ordinary meaning. 
 17 

5. “connection block” 

Claim 9 

Cameron’s Proposed Construction Nitro’s Proposed Construction

plain and ordinary meaning “a rigid connector capable of changing the 

direction of flow therethrough and having at 

least two openings” 

The Court should construe the term “connection block” to have its plain and ordinary 

meaning. The term “connection block” describes a component that connects pipes or other 

elements together, without stating “rigidity”5

 or requiring “changing the direction of flow.” This 

broad and common use is evident from the claims, and in the art. For instance, Nitro’s president, 

Bobby Koricanek, uses this term fifty times in his own patent application without providing any 

special definition. See Ex. Q. The ’132 patent likewise never defines the term because a definition 

is not needed. As a result, the Court should apply its plain and ordinary meaning without imposing 

the artificial limitations that Nitro proposes in its construction. 

 

5

 Notably, other asserted claims in the ’645 patent specifically include a “rigid” limitation. See, 

e.g., ECF No. 1-2 at claim 1 (requiring “at least one rigid fluid conduit” and “one rigid fluid 

pathway” (emphasis added)) This indicates when the patentee wanted to use the term and limit 

elements to being “rigid” it knew how to do so. It chose not to do so with this term. 
 18 

B. ’645 Patent 

1. “fracturing manifold / fracturing fluid distribution manifold” 

Claims 1–4, 10, 13, 17–18, 20 

Cameron’s Proposed Construction Nitro’s Proposed Construction

ordinary and customary meaning in the art, 

which is: “a series of pipes, connections, and 

valves that direct fracturing fluid from a 

fracturing fluid supply to individual wells” 

“a pipe or chamber with multiple outlets for 

delivering fracturing fluid to a well” 

The Court should apply the plain and ordinary meaning of the term “fracturing manifold.” 

There is no definition in the intrinsic record, so the Court may consult industry dictionaries to 

better understand the term. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1322–23. Industry definitions describe a 

fracturing manifold as a series of pipes, connections, and valves that direct fracturing fluid from a 

fracturing fluid supply to individual wells. See Ex. J (defining “frac manifold”); Ex. D at 

CAMN002171 (defining “manifold”). Dr. Wooley confirms that this is how a POSITA would 

understand the term from the POSITA’s experience and education. Ex. A, ¶¶ 96–101. 

Nitro, however, seeks a construction that would broaden “fracturing manifold” to include 

any pipe or chamber with multiple outlets. This ignores that a POSITA would understand a typical 

fracturing manifold to include valves and piping that collectively direct the flow of fluid to 

individual wells. See Ex. A, ¶¶ 96–101; Ex. D at CAMN002171; Ex. J. As with the term 

“fracturing tree,” Nitro has picked this incorrect construction in hopes that it will help when 

applying otherwise ill-fitting prior art disclosing other types of manifolds that lack valves. Nitro’s 

position was rejected by the PTAB when it considered a different patent also claiming a fracturing 

manifold. Ex. T at 17 (“For all the foregoing reasons, we maintain our preliminary construction of 

a fracturing manifold as ‘a flow path for the distribution of fracturing fluid from a source of 

fracturing fluid to one or more fracturing trees that includes at least one valve.’”). 
 19 

Moreover, nothing in the intrinsic record supports Nitro’s proposed construction. The 

specification notes that “the fracturing manifold 22 includes at least one valve that controls flow 

of fracturing fluid to the fracturing tree 20.” ECF No. 1-2 at 3:48–51. The figures likewise show 

valves in the fracturing manifold’s outlet branches. See id. at Figs. 3, 10. And the figures only 

show a portion of the trunk line, which may include additional valves in its unshown portions. In 

sum, there is no indication that the patentee used the term “fracturing manifold” inconsistently 

with its ordinary and customary meaning in the art. 

The Court should reject Nitro’s proposal and construe this term to have its ordinary and 

customary meaning in the art, which is “a series of pipes, connections, and valves that direct 

fracturing fluid from a fracturing fluid supply to individual wells.” 

2. “fracturing tree” / “fracturing trees” 

Claim 1–4, 13, 17, 20 

Cameron’s Proposed Construction Nitro’s Proposed Construction

ordinary and customary meaning in the art, 

which is: “a specific type of Christmas tree 

installed specifically for the fracturing 

process” 

“a wellhead assembly having at least one valve 

that can control the flow of fluid during a 

fracturing operation” 

As with the ’132 patent, the ’645 patent does not include a clear definition of the term 

“fracturing tree,” or any clear disavowal of claim scope. The Court should therefore give this term 

its plain and ordinary meaning for the same reasons as in Section IV.A.1, supra. 

3. “rigid fluid pathway” 

Claim 1, 10, 14, 20 

Cameron’s Proposed Construction Butch’s Proposed Construction

plain and ordinary meaning “[rigid (i.e., inflexible)] route for fluid flow 

that comprises an adjustment joint or swivel 

joint” 

The Court should give the term “rigid fluid pathway” its plain and ordinary meaning. There 
 20 

is no clear definition or clear disavowal of claim scope that supports Nitro’s construction requiring 

an adjustment joint or a swivel joint. The specification is clear that “adjacent pipes 170 and 

connection blocks 172 could be rotated to desired positions before assembling these components 

together (e.g., via a studded connection),” and thus can be positioned as desired without adjustment 

joints or swivel joints. ECF No. 1-2 at 8:40–43. The specification also explains that adjustable 

elements, like swivel components, may be present in “some embodiments.” Id. at 8:43–48 

(emphasis added). 

The language of dependent, nonasserted claims further confirms that adjustment joints and 

swivel joints are not required in a “rigid fluid pathway.” For instance, claims 6 and 9 (both 

depending from claim 1) add “an adjustment joint” and “a swivel” to the claimed system, 

respectively. ECF No. 1-2. Again, these added limitations cannot properly be read into “rigid fluid 

pathway” under the doctrine of claim differentiation. Myco Indus., 955 F.3d at 14. The Court 

should thus reject Nitro’s proposal and afford this term its plain and ordinary meaning. 

V. CONCLUSION 

The Court therefore should find “a first connection block positioned at the well fracturing 

tree” not indefinite, should reject Nitro’s improper limiting constructions, and should apply the 

plain and ordinary meaning to all the terms in accord with Cameron’s proposals.
 21 

DATED: September 4, 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