U.s. Well Services, LLC v. Coke Morgan Stewart, Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
U.S. WELL SERVICES, LLC,
Appellant
v.
COKE MORGAN STEWART, ACTING UNDER
SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND ACTING
DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES PATENT
AND TRADEMARK OFFICE,
Intervenor
______________________
2023-1796
______________________
Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2021-
01238.
______________________
Decided: February 13, 2025
______________________
MATTHEW J AMES D OWD, Dowd Scheffel PLLC, Wash-
ington, DC, argued for appellant. Also represented by
ROBERT J AMES SCHEFFEL .
O MAR F AROOQ A MIN, Office of the Solicitor, United
States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA,
Case: 23-1796 Document: 53 Page: 1 Filed: 02/13/2025

-- 1 of 4 --

U. S. WELL SERVICES, LLC v. STEWART 2
argued for intervenor. Also represented by P ETER J. AYERS ,
MAI-T RANG D UC D ANG, AMY J. N ELSON, F ARHEENA
YASMEEN RASHEED.
______________________
Before CHEN, SCHALL , and STOLL , Circuit Judges.
CHEN, Circuit Judge.
U.S. Well Services, LLC (USWS) appeals from the final
written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
(Board) determining that all claims of U.S. Patent No.
10,526,882 (’882 patent) are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 over multiple independent grounds asserted in the
inter partes review petition filed by Halliburton Energy
Services, Inc. (Halliburton). Halliburton Energy Servs.,
Inc. v. U.S. Well Servs., LLC, No. IPR2021-01238, 2023 WL
1967523 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 13, 2023) (Decision). We have ju-
risdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A). On appeal,
USWS contests the Board’s findings that the prior art dis-
closes two limitations present in the claims: the claimed
variable frequency drive (VFD) that performs certain func-
tions and the claimed switchgear. For the following rea-
sons, we affirm.
The VFD limitation is present in claims 1–7, 9, and 10.
The Board determined that Broussard1 in combination
with either Sanborn2 or Cryer3 renders this limitation ob-
vious. USWS does not dispute that Broussard discloses the
claimed VFD. Rather, for the first time on appeal, USWS
argues that a skilled artisan would not have been
1 U.S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0138079 (Brous-
sard).
2 U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0306322
(Sanborn).
3 U.S. Patent No. 8,997,904 (Cryer).
Case: 23-1796 Document: 53 Page: 2 Filed: 02/13/2025

-- 2 of 4 --

U. S. WELL SERVICES, LLC v. STEWART 3
motivated to incorporate Broussard’s features into
Sanborn or Cryer’s VFDs. See Appellant’s Br. 38–39.
USWS acknowledges that it “did not explicitly challenge
the motivation to combine Broussard with Sanborn or
Cryer during the IPR proceeding.” Appellant’s Reply
Br. 13. Upon review of the record, we agree with USWS
that it did not raise this argument below, and its challenge
on appeal therefore is forfeited. See In re Google Tech.
Holdings, LLC, 980 F.3d 858, 863 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Accord-
ingly, we need not address USWS’s other arguments re-
garding whether Sanborn or Cryer render obvious the
claimed VFD.
The switchgear limitation is present in all claims and
recites: “a switch gear between the transmission line and
the source of electricity, and another switch gear between
the transmission line and the electric motor.” ’882 patent
at claim 1; see id. at claim 8 (similar). Here too, the Board
found that three references, including Sanborn, each inde-
pendently disclose or render obvious this limitation. Alt-
hough Sanborn does not expressly disclose the claimed
switchgear configuration, the Board found that Sanborn
discloses multiple switchgear, and that a skilled artisan
would have found it obvious to place one switchgear be-
tween the transmission line and the source of electricity
and another switchgear between the transmission line and
the electric motor. See Decision, 2023 WL 1967523, at *11–
13. Substantial evidence—including Sanborn’s disclosure
and Halliburton’s expert’s testimony—supports these find-
ings. Accordingly, we need not address USWS’s other ar-
guments regarding whether the other two references
disclose or render obvious this limitation.
Additionally, USWS challenges the Board’s findings on
objective indicia of nonobviousness. The Board dismissed
USWS’s copying evidence, noting that USWS failed to “ex-
plain how this information is relevant to the claims of the
’882 patent, nor [did the Board] perceive any such rele-
vance.” Id. at *33. USWS does not cure these deficiencies
Case: 23-1796 Document: 53 Page: 3 Filed: 02/13/2025

-- 3 of 4 --

U. S. WELL SERVICES, LLC v. STEWART 4
on appeal. The Board also reasonably found USWS’s evi-
dence of commercial success unpersuasive. Decision, 2023
WL 1967523, at *33–34. USWS points to a Yahoo News
press release, which generally references “three licenses”
between ProFrac Manufacturing, LLC and USWS. J.A.
2007–08. Yet, USWS has not produced the referenced li-
censes, nor has it shown that the ’882 patent is included in
any of these licenses. USWS also asserts that its Clean
Fleet products demonstrate commercial success. However,
USWS has not demonstrated a nexus between those prod-
ucts and the claims of the ’882 patent. Fox Factory, Inc. v.
SRAM, LLC, 944 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“In or-
der to accord substantial weight to secondary considera-
tions in an obviousness analysis, the evidence of secondary
considerations must have a nexus to the claims . . . .”
(cleaned up)). Furthermore, the Board noted that USWS
did “not define the relevant market or present sales figures
in support of its assertions of commercial success.” Deci-
sion, 2023 WL 1967523, at *34; see J.T. Eaton & Co. v. Atl.
Paste & Glue Co., 106 F.3d 1563, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (not-
ing that commercial success is “usually shown by signifi-
cant sales in a relevant market, and that the successful
product is the invention disclosed and claimed in the pa-
tent”). Accordingly, the Board reasonably found that
USWS’s “evidence of objective indicia is entitled to little
weight.” Decision, 2023 WL 1967523, at *32.
We have considered USWS’s remaining arguments and
find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we af-
firm.
AFFIRMED
Case: 23-1796 Document: 53 Page: 4 Filed: 02/13/2025

-- 4 of 4 --