Bj Energy Solutions, LLC v. Evolution Well Services, LLC

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
BJ ENERGY SOLUTIONS, LLC,
Appellant
v.
EVOLUTION WELL SERVICES, LLC,
Appellee
______________________
2024-1309
______________________
Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2022-
00399.
______________________
Decided: September 12, 2025
______________________
EAGLE H OWARD R OBINSON, Norton Rose Fulbright US
LLP, Austin, TX, argued for appellant. Also represented
by J EREMY ALBRIGHT , STEPHANIE D EBROW , CHAD WALLIS .
K ENNETH W AYNE D ARBY , Fish & Richardson P.C., Aus-
tin, TX, argued for appellee. Also represented by
CHRISTOPHER D RYER , Washington, DC; J OSHUA G RISWOLD,
Dallas, TX.
______________________
Case: 24-1309 Document: 41 Page: 1 Filed: 09/12/2025

-- 1 of 5 --

BJ ENERGY SOLUTIONS, LLC v. EVOLUTION WELL SERVICES, LLC 2
Before M OORE, Chief Judge, CHEN, Circuit Judge, and
ANDREWS , District Judge.1
MOORE, Chief Judge.
BJ Energy Solutions, LLC (BJES) appeals a final writ-
ten decision (FWD) from the Patent Trial and Appeal
Board (Board) holding all challenged claims of U.S. Patent
No. 9,395,049 unpatentable as obvious. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
BJES owns the ’049 patent, which relates to a pump-
motor-pump configuration where a single electric motor
drives two hydraulic fracturing pumps, one at each end of
the motor. ’049 patent at 4:14–35. Claim 1 is representa-
tive. See id. at 8:5–42 (claim 1).
Evolution Well Services, LLC (Evolution) filed a peti-
tion for inter partes review challenging claims 1–3, 6–8, 10,
12–13, 15, and 18–20 of the ’049 patent as obvious in view
of the Zhang-Stout2 and/or Sanborn-Naets3 prior art com-
binations. J.A. 1–75. The Board held all challenged claims
would have been obvious in view of either combination.
J.A. 576–640.
BJES appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1295(a)(4)(A) and 35 U.S.C. § 141(c).
1 Honorable Richard G. Andrews, District Judge,
United States District Court for the District of Delaware,
sitting by designation.
2 U.S. Patent Application Publication No.
2015/0078924 (Zhang), J.A. 1220–26, and U.S. Patent Ap-
plication Publication No. 2010/0019626 (Stout), J.A. 1227–
1316.
3 U.S. Patent Application Publication No.
2013/0306322 (Sanborn), J.A. 1521–28, and U.S. Patent
No. 7,563,413 (Naets), J.A. 1529–37.
Case: 24-1309 Document: 41 Page: 2 Filed: 09/12/2025

-- 2 of 5 --

BJ ENERGY SOLUTIONS, LLC v. EVOLUTION WELL SERVICES, LLC 3
D ISCUSSION
I. Motion to Strike
Before the Board, BJES filed a motion to strike por-
tions of Evolution’s reply brief and supplemental expert
declaration for improperly introducing new arguments and
evidence. J.A. 388–402. The Board dismissed the motion
as moot because it did not rely on the materials BJES
sought to strike. J.A. 638. We review the Board’s eviden-
tiary rulings for abuse of discretion. VidStream LLC v.
Twitter, Inc., 981 F.3d 1060, 1064 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
BJES argues the Board abused its discretion by relying
on materials that were the subject of the motion to strike
without affirmatively ruling on that motion. BJES Br. 22–
23. We do not agree. Although the Board cited portions of
Evolution’s reply brief in its FWD, J.A. 605–07 (citing J.A.
364–65, 368–71), BJES does not explain what, if any, new
arguments those specific portions raise such that it was im-
proper for the Board to rely on them, BJES Br. 22–23.
II. Motivation to Combine
The Board found a skilled artisan would have been mo-
tivated to combine Zhang and Stout because adopting
Stout’s pump-motor-pump configuration would (1) simplify
Zhang’s system by reducing the number of components and
(2) yield a predictable result from combining known ele-
ments according to known methods. J.A. 606–08. The
Board found that, although the modification may result in
some drawbacks, it would also provide benefits, and it is
not necessary for a combination to be the best option, only
a “suitable” one. J.A. 607–08.
We review the Board’s determination of obviousness de
novo and its underlying findings for substantial evidence.
Outdry Techs. Corp. v. Geox S.p.A., 859 F.3d 1364, 1367
(Fed. Cir. 2017). The Board must support its motivation-
to-combine finding with a reasoned explanation to enable
our review for substantial evidence. Id. at 1368.
Case: 24-1309 Document: 41 Page: 3 Filed: 09/12/2025

-- 3 of 5 --

BJ ENERGY SOLUTIONS, LLC v. EVOLUTION WELL SERVICES, LLC 4
BJES argues the Board’s Zhang-Stout motivation-to-
combine finding is not adequately reasoned or supported
by substantial evidence. BJES Br. 23–44. In particular,
BJES argues the Board legally erred by relying on Dr.
King’s expert testimony to find the Zhang-Stout combina-
tion was a “suitable” option because that testimony was
about a skilled artisan’s present day knowledge of the
pump-motor-pump configuration and thus cannot be used
to establish motivation to combine. Id. at 19–23.
We do not agree. The record supports the Board’s in-
terpretation of Dr. King’s testimony as applicable to the
prior art combinations despite referencing Figure 1 of the
’049 patent. J.A. 608 (citing J.A. 2395 at 41:1–15 (King
Testimony)). Dr. King opined on the “pump-motor-pump
configuration,” a term the parties used to refer to prior art
combinations throughout the proceedings. See, e.g., J.A. 34
(Petition); J.A. 3419–20 ¶ 64 (King Decl.); J.A. 292 (Patent
Owner Response); J.A. 604 (FWD). Under our deferential
standard of review, we do not “second-guess the Board’s as-
sessment of the evidence.” Velander v. Garner, 348 F.3d
1359, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
BJES’ other arguments amount to mere disagreements
with how the Board weighed the evidence. The Board
found (1) a skilled artisan would have selected Stout to
combine with Zhang, J.A. 606–09; (2) combining them
would result in a simplification benefit, J.A. 606–07; and
(3) combining them would yield predictable results, J.A.
609. The Board relied on prior art, expert testimony, and
BJES and Evolution’s IPR filings to make those findings.
J.A. 606–09 (citing J.A. 1096–97 ¶ 54, 1098–100 ¶¶ 56–57;
J.A. 267, 273, 286; J.A. 367–71; J.A. 1224 ¶ 17; J.A. 1230
at Fig. 1C, 1295 ¶¶ 90–91; J.A. 2038 at Fig. 6, 2050 ¶ 54,
2053 ¶ 72). At most, BJES identifies other record evidence
that could support alternative findings, but that does not
mean the Board’s findings are not adequately explained or
supported by substantial evidence. Velander, 348 F.3d at
1378.
Case: 24-1309 Document: 41 Page: 4 Filed: 09/12/2025

-- 4 of 5 --

BJ ENERGY SOLUTIONS, LLC v. EVOLUTION WELL SERVICES, LLC 5
BJES also argues the Board’s Sanborn-Naets motiva-
tion-to-combine finding is not adequately reasoned or sup-
ported by substantial evidence. BJES Br. 44–61. Because
we affirm the Board’s determination that all challenged
claims would have been obvious in view of Zhang-Stout, we
need not address this argument.
CONCLUSION
We have considered BJES’ remaining arguments and
find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we af-
firm the decision of the Board.
AFFIRMED
Case: 24-1309 Document: 41 Page: 5 Filed: 09/12/2025

-- 5 of 5 --