Union Pacific Resources Co. v. Chesapeake Energy Corp.
236 F.3d 684 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A patent is invalid for non-enablement under 35 U.S.C. § 112 if its specification fails to teach a person of ordinary skill in the art how to practice the invention without undue experimentation. A patent is also invalid for indefiniteness if its claims, read in light of the specification, fail to inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.
Facts:
- Union Pacific Resources Company (UPRC) owned U.S. Patent No. 5,311,951 (the '951 patent).
- The patent claimed a method for determining the location of a horizontal drill bit relative to underground strata by analyzing data from both a horizontal and a vertical borehole.
- The method required performing steps described in the claims as 'providing characterizing information,' 'rescaling,' and 'comparing' data from the two boreholes.
- The patent specification described a process of 'correlation' that involved 'stretching and squeezing' data logs to find a 'true stratigraphic depth' (TSD) but did not explain how to perform this process.
- UPRC possessed computer software programs (TSDDET and GRNAV) that performed the claimed method, but it kept these programs as trade secrets and did not disclose their details in the patent.
- An inventor admitted via email that the specifics of the software were intentionally excluded from the patent and kept as trade secrets.
- Chesapeake Energy Corporation used a method for horizontal drilling in its oil and gas exploration operations.
Procedural Posture:
- Union Pacific Resources Company (UPRC) sued Chesapeake Energy Corporation in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas for patent infringement.
- After a bench trial, the district court held that all claims of the '951 patent were invalid for non-enablement and indefiniteness.
- The district court also found that Chesapeake did not infringe the patent and that UPRC had not engaged in inequitable conduct.
- UPRC, as appellant, appealed the invalidity and non-infringement findings to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
- Chesapeake, as cross-appellant, appealed the district court's decision on inequitable conduct and its denial of attorney fees.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a patent that describes a method for analyzing drilling data invalid for non-enablement and indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112 when the specification fails to teach a person of ordinary skill in the art how to perform the crucial 'comparing' and 'rescaling' steps central to the invention?
Opinions:
Majority - Rader, J.
Yes, the patent is invalid for non-enablement and indefiniteness. A patent must teach one of ordinary skill in the art how to practice the invention, and its claims must be definite enough for such a person to understand their scope. The court reasoned that the '951 patent fails the enablement requirement because it does not explain how to perform the pivotal 'correlation' process, which involves 'stretching and squeezing' data logs. The inventors admitted to keeping the software that performed these steps as a trade secret, meaning the specification did not provide a complete disclosure. Without instructions on how to select points, manipulate the data, and determine a match, a skilled person could not practice the invention. The patent is also indefinite because the crucial claim term 'comparing' is not defined. The specification suggests it refers to the complex and unexplained 'correlation' process, but it could also have its ordinary dictionary meaning. This ambiguity means one of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine the scope of the claims with reasonable certainty.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the fundamental principle of patent law that an inventor must provide a full and enabling disclosure in exchange for the right to exclude others. It serves as a critical reminder to patent applicants that they cannot obtain patent protection while simultaneously maintaining the core of their invention as a trade secret. The holding on indefiniteness highlights the danger of using broad, functional claim language like 'comparing' without providing a clear definition or description in the specification. This case pressures patent drafters to be explicit about how to perform key steps and to define critical terms to ensure a patent's validity.
