EXHIBIT 1 

Case 6:20-cv-00277-ADA Document 44-1 Filed 11/20/20 Page 1 of 27
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

WACO DIVISION 

NCS MULTISTAGE INC.,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

NINE ENERGY SERVICE, INC.,

Defendant. 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-CV-00277-ADA 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF DR. NATHAN MEEHAN 

Case 6:20-cv-00277-ADA Document 44-1 Filed 11/20/20 Page 2 of 27
i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1

II. QUALIFICATIONS AND PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE .......................................... 2

III. SUMMARY OF OPINIONS AND MATERIALS CONSIDERED ................................... 2

IV. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................................................... 4

V. DISPUTED CLAIM TERMS ............................................................................................. 5

A. “internal diameter” (Claims 1, 22, 28, and 50) ....................................................... 5

B. “tubular member” (Claims 1, 22, 28, and 50) ......................................................... 9

C. “sealing engagement” (Claims 1, 22, 28, 50, and 55) ........................................... 10

D. “rupturing force” (Claims 1, 22, 27, 29, 56, and 57) ............................................ 10

E. “the rupture disc is . . . configured to rupture when exposed to a rupturing force 

greater than the rupture burst pressure” (Claims 1, 22, 29, and 56) ..................... 12

F. “the region of the tubular member where the rupture disc is attached has a larger 

internal diameter than the internal diameter of the casing string and is parallel to 

the internal diameter of the casing string” (Claims 1, 22, 28, and 50) ................ 13

G. “specific gravity . . . of the well fluid” (Claims 24 and 52) .................................. 15

H. “disengage the rupture disc from sealing engagement” (Claim 55) ..................... 16

I. “rupture disc is configured to disengage from sealing engagement when exposed 

to a pressure greater than a hydraulic pressure in the casing string” (Claims 28 and 

50) ......................................................................................................................... 17

Case 6:20-cv-00277-ADA Document 44-1 Filed 11/20/20 Page 3 of 27
1 

I. INTRODUCTION 

1. My name is Nathan Meehan, Ph.D. I have been retained on behalf of Nine Energy Services, 

Inc. (“Nine”) to provide expert opinions regarding U.S. Patent No. 10,465,445 (the “’445 Patent” 

or the “Asserted Patent”). Based on my analysis and investigation, I previously reached certain 

conclusions and developed certain opinions on the issues relating to the Asserted Patent that are 

set forth in my first declaration (the “First Declaration”) in support of Nine’s opening claim 

construction brief. See Nine Opening Brief (“Nine Br.”), Ex. 1. Thus, I hereby incorporate by 

reference into this supplemental declaration (the “Supplemental Declaration”) my analyses, 

opinions, summaries, and understandings provided in the First Declaration. 

2. Based on further analysis and investigation of Plaintiff NCS Multistage Inc.’s (“NCS”) 

opening claim construction brief (Dkt. 41 or “NCS Br.”), the declaration of NCS’s expert in 

support of NCS’s opening claim construction brief (NCS Br., Ex. 1), and the transcript of NCS’s 

expert’s deposition, I have reached certain conclusions and developed certain opinions on the 

issues relating to the Asserted Patent that are set forth below. 

3. I understand the scope of this Supplemental Declaration is limited to the Court’s claim 

construction proceedings, and, therefore, I confine my opinions regarding the Asserted Patent to 

issues solely related to the construction and indefiniteness of the claims. This Supplemental 

Declaration is based on information currently available to me. I reserve the right to continue my 

investigation and study, which may include a review of documents and information that has been 

or may be produced, as well as deposition testimony from depositions for which transcripts are not 

yet available or that may later be taken in this case. 

4. Therefore, I expressly reserve the right to expand or modify my opinions as my 

investigation and study continues, and to supplement my opinions in response to any additional 

Case 6:20-cv-00277-ADA Document 44-1 Filed 11/20/20 Page 4 of 27
2 

information that becomes available to me, any matters raised by the plaintiff or opinions provided 

by its expert(s), or in light of any relevant orders from the Court. 

II. QUALIFICATIONS AND PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE 

5. I have provided an updated copy of my curriculum vitae (“CV”) with this Supplemental 

Declaration. See Ex. 2. My qualifications and professional experiences are also provided in the 

First Declaration. See Nine. Br., Ex. 1 at ¶¶3-12. 

III. SUMMARY OF OPINIONS AND MATERIALS CONSIDERED 

6. To prepare this Supplemental Declaration, I have reviewed and considered the ’445 Patent, 

the prosecution history associated with the ’445 Patent, NCS’s opening claim construction brief 

(Dkt. 41 or “NCS Br.”), NCS’s expert’s declaration in support of NCS’s opening claim 

construction brief (NCS Br., Ex. 1), and the transcript from NCS’s expert’s deposition. 

Additionally, I have considered my knowledge and direct relevant experience in the industry at the 

time of the Asserted Patent’s respective filing date and earliest priority date. I am also aware of 

information generally available to, and relied upon by, persons of ordinary skill in the art at the 

relevant time. 

7. It remains my opinion that the following claim terms would be understood by a person of 

ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention, in possession of the specification, 

claims, and prosecution history (“POSA”) as follows: 

Term # Disputed Claim Term Understanding of a POSA 

1

“internal diameter” 

(Claims 1, 22, 28, 50) 

the diameter of a fluid channel measured 

perpendicularly from the inner wall of the fluid 

channel through the center of the casing string, to 

the opposite inner wall 

2

“tubular member” 

(Claims 1, 22, 28, 50)

an upper tubular member, and a lower tubular 

member coupled with the upper tubular member

3

“sealing engagement” 

(Claims 1, 22, 28, 50, 55)

attached or secured to create a fluid-tight seal 

Case 6:20-cv-00277-ADA Document 44-1 Filed 11/20/20 Page 5 of 27
3 

Term # Disputed Claim Term Understanding of a POSA 

4

“the rupture disc is. . . configured to 

rupture when exposed to a rupturing 

force greater than the rupture burst 

pressure” 

(Claims 1, 22, 29, 56).

Term is Indefinite Under 35 U.S.C. § 112 

Proposed Alternative – the rupture disc will 

rupture when exposed to a rupturing hydraulic 

pressure greater than the rupture burst pressure

5

“rupturing force” 

(Claims 1, 22, 27, 29, 56, 57) 

Term is Indefinite Under 35 U.S.C. § 112 

Proposed Alternative – rupturing hydraulic 

pressure 

6

“the region of the tubular member 

where the rupture disc is attached has a 

larger internal diameter than the internal 

diameter of the casing string and is 

parallel to the internal diameter of the 

casing string” 

(Claims 1, 22, 28, 50) 

Term is Indefinite Under 35 U.S.C. § 112 

Proposed Alternative – a flat surface of the 

tubular member where the rupture disc is fastened, 

affixed, joined, or connected to the tubular 

member is circular and has a diameter larger than 

the internal diameter of the casing string, and 

defines a plane that is parallel to a plane defined 

by the set of internal diameters at a location in the 

casing string

7

“specific gravity . . . of the well fluid” 

(Claims 24, 52)

Term is Indefinite Under 35 U.S.C. § 112 

8

“disengage the rupture disc from sealing 

engagement” 

(Claim 55)

disengage the rupture disc from being attached or 

secured to create a fluid-tight seal 

9

“rupture disc is configured to disengage 

from sealing engagement when exposed 

to a pressure greater than a hydraulic 

pressure in the casing string” 

(Claims 28, 50)

Term is Indefinite Under 35 U.S.C. § 112 

Term # Agreed Claim Term Understanding of a POSA

10

“float shoe” 

(Claims 15 & 43)

a sealing device disposed at the lower end of the 

casing string 

11

“a pressure . . . greater than a hydraulic 

pressure in the casing string” 

(Claims 28, 50, 55)

an applied pressure that is greater than the 

hydrostatic pressure in the casing string 

12

“a portion of the sealed chamber is 

buoyant in the well fluid” 

(Claim 46)

the density of a portion of the sealed chamber is 

lower than that of the surrounding wellbore fluid 

Case 6:20-cv-00277-ADA Document 44-1 Filed 11/20/20 Page 6 of 27
4 

IV. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART 

8. I understand that NCS’s expert has opined that a person of ordinary skill in the art 

(“POSA”) for purposes of the ’445 Patent is a person who has a combination of at least one year 

of practical experience in developing and/or operating downhole plugging devices or barriers, as 

well as an undergraduate level degree in petroleum or mechanical engineering, or at least three 

years of practical experience in designing and developing downhole plugging devices, where such 

experience includes plugging devices or pressure barriers including at least one of packers, plugs, 

or other sealing mechanisms that involve hydraulic seals, sliding sleeves, and other common 

hydraulic components commonly used in downhole tools. 

9. I disagree with this definition of a POSA for several reasons. First, it expressly includes 

people with merely an undergraduate degree, and a single year in operating – but not developing 

– downhole plugging devices or barriers. I do not believe that an individual without any experience 

developing downhole devices of any kind can qualify as a POSA in the field of invention of the 

’445 Patent, without significantly more than a year of merely operating downhole tools. Further, 

all of the definitions of a POSA focus solely on plugging or sealing devices, but do not require any 

experience in well construction or casing flotation, both of which are essential skills for a POSA 

in the field of the ’445 Patent. 

10. It remains my opinion that a POSA at the time of the alleged invention is a person with a 

Bachelor’s degree, Master’s Degree, and/or Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering or Petroleum 

Engineering, or at least five years of experience working in horizontal well construction. See 

Meehan Dec., at ¶ 35. 

Case 6:20-cv-00277-ADA Document 44-1 Filed 11/20/20 Page 7 of 27
5 

V. DISPUTED CLAIM TERMS 

A. “internal diameter” (Claims 1, 22, 28, and 50) 

Defendant Nine’s Construction Plaintiff NCS’s Construction 

the diameter of a fluid channel measured 

perpendicularly from the inner wall of the fluid 

channel through the center of the casing string, 

to the opposite inner wall 

No construction 

11. NCS and its expert claim that the term “internal diameter” can have two meanings in the 

petroleum drilling industry that “can vary based on the context in which it is used.” NCS Br., Ex. 

1 (Rodgers Dec.), at ¶41; NCS Br., at 4. According to NCS’s expert, “interal diameter” can mean 

“the interior cylindrical surface of the casing” or “a length of measurement of the diameter of a 

circular corss-section cut perpendicular to the axis of the inside of a component of the casing.” 

NCS Br., Ex. 1, at 41-1, ¶¶41, 43. According to NCS, “internal diameter” as used in the petroleum 

industry can be defined as “the walls of the pipe” or “a cross-sectional line segement from a wall 

of the pipe to the wall on the opposite side of the pipe.” NCS Br., at 4. 

12. I strongly disagree. While it may be possible that a POSA at some time has carelessly 

referred to a “sidewall” of a pipe as its inside diameter or internal diameter (the “Sidewall 

Definition”), that is not an accepted or well-known industry definition in the petroleum industry, 

or any other industry of which I am aware. Even in such careless use of the word “internal 

diameter” to a sidewall, such a use would not be presumed. A POSA would presume that “internal 

diameter” referred to a diameter (the “Diameter Definition”) absent clear and express context that 

made it indisputably clear that was was being referred to was a sidewall. 

13. NCS’s expert cites two passages from the specification to support his opinion regarding 

the term “internal diameter.” NCS Br., Ex. 1, at ¶41. However, as illustrated in the table below, 

Case 6:20-cv-00277-ADA Document 44-1 Filed 11/20/20 Page 8 of 27
6 

a POSA would not understand what these portions of the specification meant if the terms “inside 

diameter,” “internal diameter,” “inner diameter,” and “diameter” were replaced with “sidewall.” 

Inside/Internal Diameter Walls of the Pipe 

Nine Br., 

Ex. 2, at 

6:62-66 

“Once the disc has been ruptured, the 

inside diameter of the casing string in 

the region of the rupture disc 

assembly 10 is substantially the same 

as that in the remainder of the casing 

string (e.g. casing ID (inner diameter) 

is restored following rupture of the 

disc)” 

“Once the disc has been ruptured, the 

[sidewall] of the casing string in the 

region of the rupture disc assembly 10 

is substantially the same as that in the 

remainder of the casing string (e.g. 

casing ID (inner [sidewall] is restored 

following rupture of the disc)” 

Nine Br., 

Ex. 2, 

10:47-53 

“The shattering of rupture disc 30 

results in opening of passageway 14 

of lower tubular member 18, so that 

the casing internal diameter in that 50 

region of lower tubular member may 

be restored to substantially the same 

diameter as the rest of the casing 

string (e.g. the casing string above and 

below the tubular or region in which 

the rupture disc was installed).” 

“The shattering of rupture disc 30 

results in opening of passageway 14 of 

lower tubular member 18, so that the 

casing internal [sidewall] in that 50 

region of lower tubular member may be 

restored to substantially the same 

[sidewall] as the rest of the casing string 

(e.g. the casing string above and below 

the tubular or region in which the 

rupture disc was installed).” 

14. Further, there is no instance of the term “diameter,” “internal diameter,” or any synonym 

thereof in the Specification that clearly refers to “the walls of the pipe” or a “cylindrical surface of 

the casing.” Instead the specification describes “diameter” and “internal diameter” as a scalar 

quantity represented by a real number and units of measurement. For example, the specification 

of the ’445 Patent states: 

In the illustrated embodiment, the diameter of disc 30 at edge 39 may be 4.8 inches, 

for example. The diameter of the top of the radially expanded region 25 of lower 

tubular member 18 may be similar. The diameter of constricted opening 27 of lower 

tubular member 18 may be 4.5 inches (which is a common ID for a casing, 

although other dimensions of both the disc and upper and lower tubular members 

are possible, provided that the disc seals the lower tubular member and that the disc 

can be “forced” close to or into the constricted opening of the lower tubular member 

18 and/or against the radially expanded portion of lower tubular member 18). 

Case 6:20-cv-00277-ADA Document 44-1 Filed 11/20/20 Page 9 of 27
7 

Nine Br., Ex. 2, at 8:19-30. Here, the specification describes the diameter of the disc, the radially 

expanded region, the constricted opening, and the tubular member with a real number and inches. 

Thus, it is my opinion that a POSA, in light of the specification, would understand “internal 

diameter” to be a scalar property and mean “the diameter of a fluid channel measured 

perpendicularly from the inner wall of the fluid channel through the center of the casing string, to 

the opposite inner wall.” 

15. I agree with NCS’s expert that the World Oil Casing Reference Tables, an industry 

publication describing specifications for casing strings, uses the term “ID” clearly and 

undisputably under its diameter meaning. NCS Opening Br. (“NCS Br.”), Ex. L. 

16. Rather than rely on cherry-picked references to determine the usage and meaning of the 

term “internal diameter” in the field of horizontal well construction, I conducted an informal 

survey of the petroleum engineering literature to determine how the term is used. To do this, I 

used OnePetro.org, a website managed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers, to provide 

professional access to oil and gas literature primarily in the Exploration and Production areas of 

the oil and gas industry, which includes horizontal well construction. Available papers come from 

a variety of journals and conference proceedings, as listed in Exhibit A to my declaration, infra. I 

searched for the terms “inside diameter” or “internal diameter” and the word “casing” published 

between 2010 and 2014, resulting in 389 search hits. I downloaded the first 50 hits and, in each 

one, searched for the term “diameter,” and read enough of the context to determine how the term 

was being used. A complete list of these documents is attached to this declaration as Exhibit B. 

17. From these documents, fourty-nine of them solely and unambiguously used the term 

“internal diameter” or “inside diameter” according to the Diameter Definition. Only in one 

document is the use of the term “inside diameter” arguably used to refer to a sidewall. Alfredo 

Case 6:20-cv-00277-ADA Document 44-1 Filed 11/20/20 Page 10 of 27
8 

Sanchez et al., Casing Centralization in Horizontal and Extended Reach Wells, SPE 150317 (20-

22 March 2012). That sole document describes frictional forces between the outer diameter of a 

casing string, and the inner diameter of centralizers. Because this document is clearly describing 

frictional forces between the outer surface of the casing string and the inner surface of centralizers, 

the context makes clear that what is referred to is the inner walls of the centralizer. This is 

consistent with my opinion that the term “inside diameter” may be used carelessly to refer to a 

sidewall, as is made clear by the context here. Further confirming this conclusion, this document 

was not subjected to peer-review, and was presented at a small conference in Vienna. 

18. Given the reasonable sample size, I conclude from this survey that a POSA would 

understand that the term “internal diameter” carries its plain and ordinary meaning, and is 

understood according to the Diameter Definition in the relevant art. Further, it is clear to me that 

there is no generally accepted or understood definition in the relevant art that “internal diameter” 

carries a Sidewall definition, and even where it is used carelessly to refer to a sidewall, such uses 

are rare, and made clear from context. 

19. In my opinion, nothing about the phrase “the casing string having an internal diameter that 

defines a fluid passageway,” as used in the preamble of the independent claims of the ’445 Patent, 

suggests that the term “internal diameter” is being used under the Sidewall Definion of “internal 

diameter.” Instead, it is well-known that the size of a fluid passageway through a length of casing 

is measured in terms of internal diameter, such as illustrated in the World Oil Casing Reference 

Tables. NCS Br., Ex. L When used in such a context, the term “internal diameter” indisputably 

refers to the diameter of the pipe or the Diameter Definition, and not to a sidewall. 

20. For the reasons discussed above, and in my First Declaration, it remains my opinion that a 

POSA would understand an “internal diameter” to mean “the diameter of a fluid channel measured 

Case 6:20-cv-00277-ADA Document 44-1 Filed 11/20/20 Page 11 of 27
9 

perpendicularly from the inner wall of the fluid channel through the center of the casing string, to 

the opposite inner wall.” 

B. “tubular member” (Claims 1, 22, 28, and 50) 

Defendant Nine’s Construction Plaintiff NCS’s Construction 

An upper tubular member, and a lower tubular 

member coupled with the upper tubular 

member. 

No construction. 

21. In my First Declaration, I opined that the term “tubular member” is not frequently used in 

the oil and gas industry. Meehan Dec, at ¶ 69. I have since discovered that “tubular member” is 

a common phrase in a specific area of the oil and gas industry, namely, the area of offshore oil 

platform construction. In that context, a “tubular member” refers to a thin-walled pipe used for 

building an oil platform’s support structure, that are generally welded together. However, because 

the ’445 Patent does not relate to offshore oil platform construction, it is still my opinion that the 

term “tubular member” would not be viewed by a POSA in the field of invention of the ’445 Patent 

as an industry-specific term. Indeed, I have no specific reason to belive that a POSA, who need 

not have any offshore experience, would have encountered or been aware of the term “tubular 

member.” 

22. I understand that Dr. Rodgers identified a portion of the ’445 Patent, at 7:31-38 as a type 

of definition of the term “tubular member.” I agree with this understanding. That portion of the 

specification recites a substantially identical definition of “tubular member” as at 2:49-56, which 

I referred to in my earlier declaration. Meehan Dec., at ¶ 70. 

23. For the reasons discussed above, and in my First Declaration, it remains my opinion that a 

POSA, in light of the specification of the ’445 Patent, would conclude that the “tubular member” 

is an assembly comprising “an upper tubular member, and a lower tubular member coupled with 

the upper tubular member.” Nine Br., Ex. 2 at 2:49-51. 

Case 6:20-cv-00277-ADA Document 44-1 Filed 11/20/20 Page 12 of 27
10 

C. “sealing engagement” (Claims 1, 22, 28, 50, and 55) 

Defendant Nine’s Construction Plaintiff NCS’s Construction 

attached or secured to create a fluid-tight seal a substantially fluid-tight seal 

24. I understand that NCS has proposed that the word “substantially” qualify “a fluid-tight 

seal,” because a POSA would allegedly understand that some seals leak. I disagree with this 

qualification. A seal that leaks is not “fluid-tight,” as demonstrated by the leak. I have further 

reviewed the specification and claims, and have found no support therein for qualifying the term 

“fluid tight-seal.” Accordingly, I disagree that the term “sealing engagement” should be construed 

to merely require a “fluid-tight seal.” 

25. For the reasons discussed above, and in my First Declaration, it remains my opinion that a 

POSA would understand “sealing engagement” to mean “attached or secured to create a fluid-tight 

seal.” 

D. “rupturing force” (Claims 1, 22, 27, 29, 56, and 57) 

Defendant Nine’s Construction Plaintiff NCS’s Construction 

Term is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112 

Proposed Alternative – rupturing pressure 

a hydraulic pressure or impact force sufficient 

to rupture the rupture disc 

26. It is my opinion that an “impact force,” is never described as a “rupturing force” in the 

specification of the ’445 Patent. The most relevant section of the specification states that a rupture 

disc “can be ruptured by engagement with an impact surface of a tubular once a rupturing force is 

applied to the disc, such as by hydraulic fluid under pressure.” In this example of a “rupturing 

force” in the specification, the “rupturing force” is identified as hydraulic pressure, which causes 

an impact on a surface which causes the rupture disc to fail. Put another way, hydraulic pressure 

and impact forces are not alternatives, but describe a cause and effect. The term “rupturing force” 

thus identifies the cause, the only example of which is “hydraulic pressure.” 

Case 6:20-cv-00277-ADA Document 44-1 Filed 11/20/20 Page 13 of 27
11 

27. In my opinion, Nine’s proposed construction does not exclude any of the embodiments of 

the ’445 Patent, but merely identifies that the “rupturing force” is a rupturing pressure. This is 

present in all embodiments of the ’445 Patent, all of which initiate the failure process through the 

application of a rupturing pressure – including embodiments where the rupture disc ultimately fails 

as a result impact on a surface. 

28. In my opinion, NCS’s proposed construction does exclude embodiments of the ’445 Patent, 

including those that use a two-step process that involves the rupture disc impacting a surface. That 

is, a POSA reading the claims will not presume from the term “rupturing force” that what is 

intended is a two-step process that involves first a rupturing force, and then an impact on a surface, 

but merely that a force is initially applied that will result in a failure of the rupture disc – no matter 

the mechanism of such failure. 

29. Nonetheless, this term is indefinite, because it carries the same meaning as when used in 

the term described below, where it is compared to a “rupture burst pressure.” For this reason, Nine 

proposes as an alternative “rupturing pressure,” which corresponds to Nine’s alternative in the 

term discussed below. 

30. For the reasons discussed above, and in my First Declaration, it remains my opinion that 

the claim term “rupturing force,” when read in light of the intrinsic evidence, fails to inform with 

reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention. 

Case 6:20-cv-00277-ADA Document 44-1 Filed 11/20/20 Page 14 of 27
12 

E. “the rupture disc is . . . configured to rupture when exposed to a rupturing 

force greater than the rupture burst pressure” (Claims 1, 22, 29, and 56) 

Defendant Nine’s Construction Plaintiff NCS’s Construction 

Term is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112 

Proposed Alternative – the rupture disc will 

rupture when exposed to a rupturing pressure 

greater than the rupture burst pressure 

the rupture disc can rupture if exposed to 

hydraulic pressure that is higher than its 

rupture burst pressure 

31. It is my opinion that, to the extent that “rupturing force” is construed to include impact 

forces, an impact force cannot be compared to a rupture burst pressure. The “rupture burst 

pressure” is a rating of a rupture disc and is a fixed value referring to a constant gauge pressure 

across the entire rupture disc. A POSA would not know how to convert an “impact force” into a 

figure that can be compared to the rupture burst pressure, because such an “impact force” may be 

distributed over a smaller part of the rupture disc, or combined with a gauge pressure across the 

rupture disc. Even though a pressure may be convertible to a force, converting the rupture burst 

pressure of a rupture disc to a rupture force would provide a POSA no meaningful information 

about when the rupture disc would fail relative to an impact force. 

32. For the reasons discussed above, and in my First Declaration, it remains my opinion that 

the claim term “the rupture disc is . . . configured to rupture when exposed to a rupturing force 

greater than the rupture burst pressure,” when read in light of the intrinsic evidence, fails to inform 

with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention a POSA, in light 

of the specification, would not cannot be resolved by any reasonable construction. 

Case 6:20-cv-00277-ADA Document 44-1 Filed 11/20/20 Page 15 of 27
13

F. “the region of the tubular member where the rupture disc is attached has a 

larger internal diameter than the internal diameter of the casing string and is 

parallel to the internal diameter of the casing string” (Claims 1, 22, 28, and 

50)

Defendant Nine’s Construction Plaintiff NCS’s Construction

Term is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112 

Proposed Alternative – a flat surface of the 

tubular member where the rupture disc is 

fastened, affixed, joined, or connected to the 

tubular member is circular and has a diameter 

larger than the internal diameter of the casing 

string, and defines a plane that is parallel to a 

plane defined by the set of internal diameters 

at a location in the casing string 

In the first portion of the tubular member, the 

rupture disc is directly secured to and in 

sealing engagement with a cylindrical surface 

that is wider than and parallel to the inner 

surface of the casing string 

33. NCS claims that “the region of the tubular member where the rupture disc is attached . . . 

is parallel to the internal diameter of the casing string” means “in the first portion of the tubular 

member, the rupture disc is directly secured to and in sealing engagement with a cylindrical surface 

that is . . . parallel to the inner surface of the casing string.” NCS Br., at 10. In support of this 

proposed construction, NCS presents an annotated version of Figure 2 from the ’445 Patent: 

Case 6:20-cv-00277-ADA Document 44-1 Filed 11/20/20 Page 16 of 27
14 

NCS Br., at 11. NCS claims that “the surface where the disc presses against the side wall (green

line) is parallel to the casing string wall (blue line).” NCS Br., at 13. 

34. NCS claims that “‘the region of the tubular member where the rupture disc is attached’ is 

a surface located in the region (red box) that is ‘directly secured to and in sealing engagement 

with the rupture disc.’” However, this region is not entirely parallel to NCS’s casing string wall 

(blue line) because the convex portion of the disc that is attached to the tubular member is not 

parallel to the casing string wall. 

35. NCS claims that “parallel, cylindrical surfaces are described in the patent extensively,” but 

the word “parallel” is only used in the independent claims and does not appear in the disclosure of 

the ’445 Patent. Figures 2 and 3 also do not support NCS’s position that two cylindrical surfaces 

are parallel. 

36. A POSA would not ordinarily describe two cylinders sharing the same axis as being 

parallel. Simply identifying two parallel lines depicting sidewalls in a cross-section, as NCS did 

in Figure 2 of the ’445 Patent, is not enough because those lines depict three-dimensional objects 

in any real-world embodiment. Instead, a POSA would describe cylinders with common axes as 

coaxial or concentric. Such phrasing does indicate that the axes of the cylinders are parallel simply 

because a line, such as the common axis of the cylinders, is definitionally parallel with itself. 

Accordingly, a POSA would not generally describe two cylinders having a common axis as 

“parallel,” although a POSA may understand some logic by comparison of the axes of the 

cylinders. Further, by the same logic, two cylinders could be “parallel” even though they are not 

coaxial. But there is no suggestion in the ’445 Patent that there are any cylindrical features with 

offset – yet parallel – axes. 

Case 6:20-cv-00277-ADA Document 44-1 Filed 11/20/20 Page 17 of 27
15 

37. For this same reason, NCS’s construction does not flow naturally or clearly from the claim 

language, and even if it did, would require a POSA to make two inferential steps to determine 

whether two cylinders are coaxial: (1) a POSA would have to translate the features claims into 

geometric terms - cylinders; and (2) a POSA would have to identify that a component of those 

geometric shapes – their axes – are parallel.

38. For the reasons discussed above, and in my First Declaration, it remains my opinion that 

the claim term “the region of the tubular member where the rupture disc is attached has a larger 

internal diameter than the internal diameter of the casing string and is parallel to the internal 

diameter of the casing string,” when read in light of the specification, fails to inform, with 

reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention. 

G. “specific gravity . . . of the well fluid” (Claims 24 and 52) 

Defendant Nine’s Construction Plaintiff NCS’s Construction 

Term is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112 No Construction 

39. This term is indefinite because it presupposes a false concept—that well fluid has a 

constant specific gravity through the depth of the well. But it is well understood by POSA’s that 

the density, and thus the specific gravity, of well fluid changes with depth due to changes in 

pressure and temperature, as confirmed by extrinsic evidence in the field. Nine Br., Ex. 13. 

Accordingly, the term is indefinite, because it describes a feature that cannot exist. 

40. For the reasons discussed above, and in my First Declaration, it remains my opinion that 

the claim term “specific gravity . . . of the well fluid,” when read in light of the specification, fails 

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

Case 6:20-cv-00277-ADA Document 44-1 Filed 11/20/20 Page 18 of 27
16 

H. “disengage the rupture disc from sealing engagement” (Claim 55) 

Defendant Nine’s Construction Plaintiff NCS’s Construction 

disengage the rupture disc from being attached 

or secured to create a fluid-tight seal 

Before rupturing, move the rupture disc 

relative to the region 

41. NCS proposes construing “disengage the rupture disc from sealing engagement” as “before 

rupturing, move the rupture disc relative to the region.” However, NCS’s construction eradicates 

“disengage” from the claim term. Merely moving the rupture disc before it ruptures is insufficient 

to “disengage the rupture disc from sealing engagement.” The claim is clear that the disc must 

disengage (“to release from attachment or connection,” see Ex. 5, at 353)1 from sealing 

engagement. The seal can be maintained even when the rupture disc moves. NCS even admits 

that “the seal between the rupture disc and the tubular member . . . is lost when the disc ruptures.” 

Thus, merely moving the rupture disc is insufficient to disengage the rupture disc from sealing 

engagement. According to NCS, rupturing the disc is what causes the disengaging of the rupture 

disc from sealing engagement. 

42. Similarly, nothing in the claims requires the rupture disc to move relative to the region 

before the rupture disc disengages from sealing engagement or is ruptured. In fact, the 

specification never discloses a rupture disc that moves and maintains sealing engagement. 

43. For the reasons discussed above, and in my First Declaration, and a POSA’s understanding 

of the term “sealing engagement,” it remains my opinion that a POSA would have understood this 

1

 I previously cited this reference in my First Declaration. See Nine. Br., Ex. 1, at ¶110. However, 

the page from Exhibit 6 that included the definition of “disengage” was unintentionally omitted. 

See Nine Br., Ex. 6. Opposing counsel received this reference during my deposition and deposed 

me regarding the term “disengage” as defined in this reference. This reference is presented as 

Exhibit 5 to Nine Energy Service, Inc.’s Responsive Claim Construction Brief and is intented to 

support my First Declaration at paragraph 110 and this Supplemental Declaration. 

Case 6:20-cv-00277-ADA Document 44-1 Filed 11/20/20 Page 19 of 27
17 

term to mean the release of the rupture disc from being attached or connected to create a fluidtight seal. 

I. “rupture disc is configured to disengage from sealing engagement when 

exposed to a pressure greater than a hydraulic pressure in the casing string” 

(Claims 28 and 50) 

Defendant Nine’s Construction Plaintiff NCS’s Construction 

Term is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112 the rupture disc, before rupturing, can move 

relative to the first portion when exposed to a 

pressure that is greater than a hydrostatic 

pressure in the casing string (i.e. a disengaging 

pressure) 

44. NCS’s proposed construction requires movement following exposure to a certain pressure, 

but a POSA, in light of the specification, would understand that this feature is provided by the 

shear ring, not the rupture disc. See Nine Br., Ex. 2, at 8:48-50, 8:67-9:4. Further, as previously 

stated in my First Declaration, the specification fails to disclose any features of the rupture disc 

that would satisfy this limitation. See Nine Br., Ex. 1, ¶115. 

45. For the reasons discussed above, and in my First Declaration, it remains my opinion that 

the claim term “rupture disc is configured to disengage from sealing engagement when exposed to 

a pressure greater than a hydraulic pressure in the casing string,” when read in light of the intrinsic 

evidence, is indefinite because it fails to inform with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art 

about the scope of the invention. 

Case 6:20-cv-00277-ADA Document 44-1 Filed 11/20/20 Page 20 of 27
I declare under penalty of perjuryunder the laws of the United States of America that the 

foregoing is true and correct. 

Executed in Houston, TX, USA 

Date: Nov. 20, 2020 

By: 

........... 

...• 

.......z...:,,, 4: b,.... 

r I' \-

0 1-: i iZ: ! 

.... . ...,.. 

;I % 

3

,... 

, 

'N% 3...* 1 • „, i 

, 

1 ** .•' sv,..4r • t„,-7-7

•. . ) . , 

,I. 

• 'i 

fo, ".• 

e DONALD NATHAN MEEI .IAN 

i

i 

f 

92247

I ki-,4:.<•:..-.: :- .......... i.... • • -;.-,11‘;'-''-'.._"-- -

---

18 

Case 6:20-cv-00277-ADA Document 44-1 Filed 11/20/20 Page 21 of 27
19 

EXHIBIT A 

List of Documents Available Through OnePetro.org 

Journals 

Journal Years Available 

Corrosion 1992 - 2006 

International Journal of Offshore and Polar Engineering 1991 - present 

Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology 1962 - 2015 

Journal of Petroleum Technology 1949 - present 

Journal of Sailboat Technology 2010 - 2014 

Journal of Sailing Technology 2016 - present 

Journal of Ship Production 1985 - 2009 

Journal of Ship Production and Design 2010 - present 

Journal of Ship Research 1957 - present 

Journal of the Society of Petroleum Evaluation Engineers 1968 - 1970 

The Log Analyst 1960 - 1999 

Marine Technology and SNAME News 1964 - 2010 

Oil & Gas Executive Report 1998 - 1999 

Oil and Gas Facilities 2012 - 2016 

Oil Industry Journal 2016 - present 

Petroleum Technology 1938 - 1946 

Petrophysics 2000 - present 

Professional Safety 2007 - present 

PROneft Journal 2019 - present 

Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal 1961 - 1985 

SPE Advanced Technology Series 1993 - 1997 

SPE Computer Applications 1989 - 1997 

SPE Drilling & Completion 1993 - present 

SPE Drilling Engineering 1986 - 1992 

SPE Economics & Management 2009 - 2017 

SPE Formation Evaluation 1986 - 1997 

SPE Journal 1996 - present 

SPE Production & Facilities 1993 - 2005 

SPE Production & Operations 2006 - present 

SPE Production Engineering 1986 - 1992 

SPE Projects, Facilities & Construction 2006 - 2011 

SPE Reservoir Engineering 1986 - 1997 

SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 1998 - present 

Talent & Technology 2007 - 2008 

Transactions of the AIME 1885 - 1960 

The Way Ahead 2005 - 2016 

Case 6:20-cv-00277-ADA Document 44-1 Filed 11/20/20 Page 22 of 27
20 

Conference Proceedings 

Organizations 

American Petroleum Institute 

American Rock Mechanics Association

American Society of Safety Engineers

BHR Group

Carbon Management Technology Conference

International Petroleum Technology Conference

International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers

International Society for Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering

NACE International

Offshore Mediterranean Conference

Offshore Technology Conference

Petroleum Society of Canada

Pipeline Simulation Interest Group

Society of Exploration Geophysicists

The Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers

Society of Petroleum Engineers

Society of Petrophysicists and Well-Log Analysts

Society of Underwater Technology

Unconventional Resources Technology Conference

World Petroleum Congress

Case 6:20-cv-00277-ADA Document 44-1 Filed 11/20/20 Page 23 of 27
21 

EXHIBIT B

Documents Reviewed 

1. Kakumoto, M., Yoneda, J., Tenma, N., Miyazaki, K., Aoki, K., & Itoi, R. (2012, January 1). 

Frictional Strength Between Casing And Cement Under Confining Pressure. International 

Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers. 

2. Lautenschläger, C. E. R., Righetto, G. L., Albuquerque, R. A. C., Inoue, N., & Fontoura, S. 

A. B. (2014, January 1). Effects Of Reservoir Development on the Well Casing Behavior. 

International Society for Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering. 

3. Denney, D. (2013, January 1). Casing Drilling Manages Shallow-Gas Risk in Brownfield 

Redevelopment. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/0113-0115-JPT 

4. Carpenter, C. (2014, May 1). New Casing Valve in a Deep-Well Sour Environment. Society 

of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/0514-0150-JPT 

5. Bybee, K. (2011, June 1). Mechanical Performance and Stress-Corrosion-Cracking 

Resistance of Expanded Casing. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/0611-0079-

JPT 

6. Payne, M. L., Cocking, D. A., & Hatch, A. J. (1994, January 1). Critical Technologies for 

Success in Extended Reach Drilling. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/28293-

MS 

7. Benelkadi, S., Bianco, E. V., Burton, P., & Motta, M. D. (2019, October 28). Subsurface 

Drilling Waste Injection: Challenges, Recent Advances and Cases Studies. Offshore 

Technology Conference. doi:10.4043/29920-MS 

8. Saaverdra, N. F., Mamora, D. D., Burnett, D. B., & Platt, F. M. (1998, January 1). Chemical 

Wellbore Plug for Zone Isolation in Horizontal Wells. Society of Petroleum Engineers. 

doi:10.2118/39647-MS 

9. Brown, D. R., Jones, P. S., & Al-Saif, K. (1998, January 1). Evaluation of Long-Term 

Effluent Water Disposal Options in the Greater Burgan Field. Society of Petroleum 

Engineers. doi:10.2118/49219-MS 

10. Sudron, K., Berners, H., Ulrich, F., Sickinger, W., Hadow, A., & Klop, G. (1999, January 

1). Dieksand 2; an Extended Well Through Salt, Increases Production from an 

Environmentally Protected Field. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/52854-MS 

11. Smith, J. E., Chandler, R. B., & Boster, P. L. (2001, January 1). Titanium Drill Pipe for 

Ultra-Deep and Deep Directional Drilling. Society of Petroleum Engineers. 

doi:10.2118/67722-MS 

12. Eloff, A., Cavieres, G. G., Milathianakis, J., Gordillo, E., & Gonzalez, E. (2001, January 1). 

Use of a Heat Conveyor Increases Capacity of Artificial-Lift System in Viscous Oil Wells. 

Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/69435-MS 

13. Balsawer, A., Hirani, S., Lumbye, P., Krog, A., Bonnell, V., Rushdan, M., & Abul-Hamd, I. 

(2014, January 19). Multi-zone Completion Design For Long Horizontal ERD Wells In Al 

Shaheen Field. International Petroleum Technology Conference. doi:10.2523/IPTC-17611-

MS 

Case 6:20-cv-00277-ADA Document 44-1 Filed 11/20/20 Page 24 of 27
22 

14. Gammage, J. H. (2011, January 1). Advances in Casing Centralization Using Spray Metal 

Technology. Offshore Technology Conference. doi:10.4043/21979-MS 

15. Ruddy, K. E., & Hill, D. (1992, January 1). Analysis of Buoyancy-Assisted Casings and 

Liners in Mega-Reach Wells. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/23878-MS 

16. Bueno, R. C. S., & Morooka, C. K. (1994, January 1). Analysis Method for Contact Forces 

Between Drillstring-Well-Riser. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/28723-MS 

17. Rogers, H. E., Bolado, D. L., & Sullaway, B. L. (1998, January 1). Buoyancy Assist 

Extends Casing Reach in Horizontal Wells. Society of Petroleum Engineers. 

doi:10.2118/50680-MS 

18. Rae, G., Williams, H., & Hamilton, J. (2003, January 1). A New Approach for Running 

Production Casing from Semi-Submersible Rigs on Highly Deviated Wells. Society of 

Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/79814-MS 

19. Walker, M. W. (2008, January 1). Extended-Reach Drilling—Offshore California: An 

Operator's Experience With Drilling a Record Extended-Reach Well. Society of 

Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/112536-MS 

20. Abbasy, I., Ritchie, B., Pitts, M. J., White, B. J., & Jaafar, M. R. (2010, June 1). Challenges 

in Completing Long Horizontal Wells Selectively. Society of Petroleum Engineers. 

doi:10.2118/116541-PA 

21. McGlone, D. (2009, January 1). The Challenges of Designing and Installing High Pressure 

Gas Pipelines Through Inshore, Shallow Waters in Bahrain. Society of Petroleum 

Engineers. doi:10.2118/120480-MS 

22. Kumar, N., Marker, R., Corneliussen, R., Kirkemo, E. G., & Jonnalagadda, A. (2010, 

January 1). Mono Diameter Expandable Drilling Liner Applications in Deepwater Drilling. 

Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/128175-MS 

23. Molaschi, C., Sormani, E., Dallera, S., & Fraser, T. (2010, January 1). Dual Casing Running 

for Deepwater Spud-In. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/133032-MS 

24. Ritchie, B., Pitts, M. J., Van De Ven, S. J. A., & Abdel Aziz, I. A. (2010, January 1). 

Increasing the Reach and Selectivity of Completions in Extended Reach Horizontal Wells. 

Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/135670-MS 

25. Calhoun, W. M., Langdon, S. P., Wu, J., Hogan, G. P., & Rutledge, K. (2010, January 1). 

Casing Wear Prediction and Management in Deepwater Wells. Society of Petroleum 

Engineers. doi:10.2118/137223-MS 

26. Da Silva, L. P., Paixao, D., Kishi, A. R. K., & Silva, A. R. (2010, January 1). Hole 

Enlargement in Brazilian. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/139300-MS 

27. Armstrong, N. R., & Evans, A. M. (2011, January 1). Extended Reach Drilling - Offshore 

California. Extending Capabilities and Improving Performance. Society of Petroleum 

Engineers. doi:10.2118/140265-MS 

28. Tian, J., Wang, Q., Guo, Q., Guo, H., & Liu, C. (2011, January 1). Casing Integrity 

Evaluation in Deep Well with Extreme Heavy Mud in Tarim Basin. Society of Petroleum 

Engineers. doi:10.2118/140982-MS 

Case 6:20-cv-00277-ADA Document 44-1 Filed 11/20/20 Page 25 of 27
23 

29. Mitchell, S., Moore, N. B., Franks, J., Liu, G., & Xiang, Y. L. (2011, December 1). 

Comparing the Results of a Full-Scale Buckling-Test Program to Actual Well Data: New 

Semiempirical Buckling Model and Methods of Reducing Buckling Effects. Society of 

Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/144535-PA 

30. Hekelaar, S., Gibson, K., & Desai, P. C. (2011, January 1). Increasing Reliability of 

Cutting/Pulling Casing in a Single Trip. Society of Petroleum Engineers. 

doi:10.2118/145494-MS 

31. Samuel, R., & Gradishar, J. R. (2011, January 1). Casing Running Analysis in Riserless 

Topholes. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/147189-MS 

32. Brill, T. M., Le Calvez, J.-L., Demichel, C., Nichols, E., & Bermudez, F. Z. (2011, January 

1). Quantitative Corrosion Assessment with an EM Casing Inspection Tool. Society of 

Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/149069-MS 

33. Guidry, C. W., & Thomas, R. (2012, January 1). Drillstring Dynamics Simulation Optimizes 

Multilateral Casing Exit Windows. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/151556-

MS 

34. Uzokwe, F. C. (2012, January 1). Casing ERD Wells to Target the New Improved Casing 

Flotation - A New Solution. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/162963-MS 

35. Kelkar, M. G., Pereyra, E. J., Skopich, A., & Sarica, C. (2013, March 23). Pipe Diameter 

Effect on Liquid Loading in Vertical Gas Wells. Society of Petroleum Engineers. 

doi:10.2118/164477-MS 

36. Kent, A. W., Burkhead, D. W., Burton, R. C., Furui, K., Actis, S. C., Bjornen, K., ... Zhang, 

T. (2014, June 1). Intelligent Completion Inside Uncemented Liner For Selective High-Rate 

Carbonate Matrix Acidizing. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/166209-PA 

37. Tello, L. N., Azuaje, D. C., & Tran, D. (2014, May 12). High Resolution Real-Time 

Thickness Measurement of Internal and External Casing Anomalies with Ultrasonic Scanner 

Tools. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/169631-MS 

38. Morita, N., & Shiozawa, S. (2014, September 10). Stability Analysis of Casings during 

Plastic Deformation. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/170303-MS 

39. Morita, N. (2014, August 25). Elastic-Plastic Behavior and Limit Load Analysis of Casings. 

Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/170524-MS 

40. Rae, G., Williams, H., & Hamilton, J. (2004, June 1). Selective Flotation of Casing From a 

Floating Vessel. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/88841-PA 

47.

41. Sanchez, R. A., Brown, C. F., & Adams, W. (2012, January 1). Casing Centralization in 

Horizontal and Extended Reach Wells. Society of Petroleum Engineers. 

doi:10.2118/150317-MS 

42. Denney, D. (2013, January 1). Casing Drilling Manages Shallow-Gas Risk in Brownfield 

Redevelopment. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/0113-0115-JPT 

43. Carpenter, C. (2013, October 1). Drilling and Completing Cascade and Chinook Wells: A 

Case History. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/1013-0113-JPT 

Case 6:20-cv-00277-ADA Document 44-1 Filed 11/20/20 Page 26 of 27
24 

44. Denney, D. (2013, May 1). Unconventional Shale Play: Multilateral Technology and 

Selective Fracturing. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/0513-0138-JPT 

45. Bergerot, J.-L. (2011, October 1). Advanced Drilling in HP/HT: Total's Experience 

on Elgin/Franklin (UK North Sea). Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/129422-

JPT 

46. Wilson, A. (2012, September 1). Autonomous Perforating Tool Works Without Umbilicals 

and Self-Destructs During Process. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/0912-

0106-JPT 

47. Jacobs, T. (2014, April 1). Renewing Mature Shale Wells Through Refracturing. Society of 

Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/0414-0052-JPT 

48. Denney, D. (2012, July 1). Offshore ESP-Selection Criteria: An Industry Study. Society of 

Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/0712-0088-JPT 

49. Carpenter, C. (2014, February 1). High-Performance Water-Based Drilling Fluids Offshore 

Cameroon. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/0214-0120-JPT 

50. Carpenter, C. (2013, September 1). Advancements in Completion Technology Increase 

Production in the Williston Basin. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/0913-0127-

JPT 

Case 6:20-cv-00277-ADA Document 44-1 Filed 11/20/20 Page 27 of 27