Halliburton v. US Well Services: Seven-Patent Electric Fracturing Dispute Closed After 1,420 Days
Halliburton Co. and US Well Services LLC brought a seven-patent infringement action against US Well Services Inc. and Cimarex Energy Co. in the Western District of Texas, asserting patents covering all-electric hydraulic fracturing fleets including the Zeus Electric Pumps. The case ran for nearly four years before the court issued an order of dismissal, closing proceedings on March 5, 2025.
Electric Fracturing IP Battle: Halliburton’s Seven-Patent Assertion Ends Without Trial
Filed on April 15, 2021 before Judge Alan D. Albright in the Western District of Texas, this case pitted Halliburton Co. and co-plaintiff US Well Services LLC against US Well Services Inc. and energy operator Cimarex Energy Co. The plaintiffs asserted seven U.S. patents — including US9745840B2, US9611728B2, US8789601B2, US10408030B2, US9970278B2, US9410410B2, and US10337308B2 — covering core technologies embedded in Halliburton’s All-Electric Fracturing Fleet and its 5000HHP Zeus Electric Pumps, a product line positioned at the forefront of electrified oilfield completions.
The case closed on March 5, 2025 when the Clerk of Court was directed to close proceedings following the Court’s Order of Dismissal (ECF No. 501). The basis of termination is recorded as ‘Case Dismissed,’ but the public docket entry does not expressly specify whether dismissal was entered with or without prejudice, leaving the precise legal finality ambiguous from the available record. Both parties had engaged substantial counsel — Baker Botts, McDermott Will & Emery, and Winston & Strawn among them — suggesting the dispute was actively and vigorously litigated throughout its lifecycle.
At 1,420 days, the case duration is notably prolonged even by W.D. Texas standards, suggesting complex claim construction proceedings, likely inter partes review activity on one or more of the seven patents, and the logistical complexity of multi-party litigation. The involvement of Cimarex Energy Co. as a co-defendant — an end-user operator rather than a technology competitor — is consistent with plaintiffs pursuing downstream infringement liability alongside the primary equipment rival. What ultimately drove the dismissal, and whether any commercial resolution accompanied it, remains undisclosed in the public record.
Filing to Case Dismissed in 1420 days
Nearly 4 years — above average for W.D. Texas patent cases
Case dismissed: what the Order of Dismissal means for both parties
Order of Dismissal ends proceedings without a merits ruling
The Clerk was directed to close the case following the Court’s Order of Dismissal (ECF No. 501). A court-entered dismissal order at this stage of litigation typically reflects either a negotiated resolution between the parties, a procedural stipulation, or a court-initiated termination. Critically, the public docket does not specify whether the dismissal was entered with or without prejudice, which determines whether the plaintiffs retain the right to re-file the same claims.
No merits adjudicationWith or without prejudice? The public record is silent
A dismissal ‘with prejudice’ would bar Halliburton and US Well Services LLC from re-asserting the same seven patents against these defendants on the same claims — effectively a final resolution. A dismissal ‘without prejudice’ preserves the plaintiffs’ ability to re-file. The docket entry references only ‘Case Dismissed’ without qualifying language, meaning practitioners cannot determine finality from the publicly available record alone. Reviewing ECF No. 501 directly would be necessary to confirm the prejudice status.
Finality unconfirmedUS Well Services Inc. and Cimarex exit without an infringement finding
The dismissal means no court has adjudicated whether US Well Services Inc.’s electric fracturing equipment or Cimarex’s operations infringed any of the seven asserted patents. Absent a finding of infringement, the defendants avoid injunctive relief and damages exposure under this action. However, if dismissal was entered without prejudice, the threat of re-assertion against the same or updated products is not eliminated. The seven patents remain in force unless separately invalidated.
No infringement findingSeven electric fracturing patents remain enforceable and commercially active
The dismissal does not affect the validity or enforceability of Halliburton’s seven asserted patents. Competitors in the all-electric pressure pumping space — including those developing or deploying high-horsepower electric frac fleets — should treat this portfolio as an active enforcement risk. The Zeus Electric Pump patents in particular cover technology central to the industry’s electrification transition, and the absence of a court ruling on invalidity or non-infringement leaves the landscape unsettled for third parties.
Portfolio remains liveFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Halliburton, Co. | Company | Oilfield services and electric fracturing technology — holder of US9745840B2 and 6 further patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | US Well Services, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | US WELL SERVICES, INC. | Company | US Well Services Inc., electric pressure pumping competitor; Cimarex Energy Co., operator co-defendantSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Cimarex Energy Co. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Alexander T. Piala | Attorney | Counsel for Halliburton, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Andrea L. Fair | Attorney | Counsel for Halliburton, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Brandon Chen | Attorney | Counsel for Halliburton, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Christian Taylor Tatum | Attorney | Counsel for Halliburton, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | David Joshua Tobin | Attorney | Counsel for Halliburton, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | David M. Genender | Attorney | Counsel for Halliburton, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Gregory Phillip Love | Attorney | Counsel for Halliburton, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jennifer Carter | Attorney | Counsel for Halliburton, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jordan A. Kazlow | Attorney | Counsel for Halliburton, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Kirstie Wallace | Attorney | Counsel for Halliburton, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Lindsay Volpenhein Cutie | Attorney | Counsel for Halliburton, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Mark D. Siegmund | Attorney | Counsel for Halliburton, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael Hawes | Attorney | Counsel for Halliburton, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Roger J. Fulghum | Attorney | Counsel for Halliburton, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Susan Cannon Kennedy | Attorney | Counsel for Halliburton, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Syed K. Fareed | Attorney | Counsel for Halliburton, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Wesley D. Edwards | Attorney | Counsel for Halliburton, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Baker Botts LLP | Law Firm | Representing Halliburton, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Cherry Johnson Siegmund James PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Halliburton, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | McDermott Will & Emery LLP | Law Firm | Representing Halliburton, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Miller Fair Henry PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Halliburton, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Steckler Wayne Cherry & Love PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Halliburton, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Abelino Reyna | Attorney | Counsel for US WELL SERVICES, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Austin Saathoff | Attorney | Counsel for US WELL SERVICES, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Barden Todd Patterson | Attorney | Counsel for US WELL SERVICES, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Brooke C. Wilson | Attorney | Counsel for US WELL SERVICES, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | E. Danielle T. Williams | Attorney | Counsel for US WELL SERVICES, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Edgar Neil Gonzalez | Attorney | Counsel for US WELL SERVICES, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jackson Craig Smith | Attorney | Counsel for US WELL SERVICES, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jervonne D. Newsome | Attorney | Counsel for US WELL SERVICES, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | John Allen Yates | Attorney | Counsel for US WELL SERVICES, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | John H. Barr , Jr. | Attorney | Counsel for US WELL SERVICES, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | John Tyler Boyce | Attorney | Counsel for US WELL SERVICES, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Joshua Hain Park | Attorney | Counsel for US WELL SERVICES, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kyrie Kimber Cameron | Attorney | Counsel for US WELL SERVICES, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Rex A. Mann | Attorney | Counsel for US WELL SERVICES, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Richard McCarty | Attorney | Counsel for US WELL SERVICES, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Steven Ray Laxton | Attorney | Counsel for US WELL SERVICES, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Thomas M. Melsheimer | Attorney | Counsel for US WELL SERVICES, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Tracea Lachelle Rice | Attorney | Counsel for US WELL SERVICES, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Meade Neese & Barr LLP | Law Firm | Representing US WELL SERVICES, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Patterson & Sheridan LLP | Law Firm | Representing US WELL SERVICES, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Winston Strawn LLP | Law Firm | Representing US WELL SERVICES, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Winston Strawn LLP (Chicago) | Law Firm | Representing US WELL SERVICES, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Alan D Albright | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The docket’s closing entry — directing the Clerk to close the case following the Court’s Order of Dismissal (ECF No. 501) — is procedural rather than substantive. It records the mechanical closure of the case but does not reveal whether dismissal was consensual, stipulated, or court-ordered, nor whether it was entered with or without prejudice. The absence of any infringement finding, damages award, or claim construction ruling means neither party can rely on this proceeding as judicial precedent on the merits of the seven asserted electric fracturing patents.
US9745840B2 and Six Further Patents — Electric Hydraulic Fracturing Systems
The seven patents asserted in this case — anchored by US9745840B2 and including US9611728B2, US8789601B2, US10408030B2, US9970278B2, US9410410B2, and US10337308B2 — collectively cover the technical architecture and operational methods underlying all-electric hydraulic fracturing systems. The application dates span from US13/679689 through US15/653028, indicating a portfolio built up over several years as Halliburton developed and commercialised its All-Electric Fracturing Fleet. These patents sit at the intersection of power electronics, high-horsepower fluid pumping, and wellsite control systems.
The commercial significance of this portfolio is substantial. Electric fracturing is one of the most capital-intensive transitions underway in the completion services market, driven by emissions mandates, fuel cost volatility, and operator preference for lower-carbon completions. Halliburton’s Zeus Electric Pumps — the product embodying these patents — compete directly with similar offerings from US Well Services and other pressure pumping rivals. A portfolio of seven granted patents covering core system elements creates meaningful design-around barriers and positions Halliburton as a dominant IP holder in the electrified completions space.
Should you run an FTO against US9745840B2 and the Zeus pump patent family?
Any company designing, manufacturing, or operating all-electric or hybrid-electric hydraulic fracturing equipment should treat this seven-patent portfolio as a priority FTO target. The patents cover not just pump hardware but system-level architecture and operational methods — meaning both OEMs and end-use operators could face exposure. Given that the case resolved without any validity or non-infringement ruling, there is no judicial safe harbour to rely on.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and IP teams to map their electric frac fleet designs against each of the seven asserted patent families, identify claim elements that may read on proposed product configurations, and surface prior art that could support invalidity arguments. Eureka can also monitor these patents for continuation filings or reissues that could extend coverage into adjacent technical areas.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9745840B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Electric Fracturing and Oilfield Services Patent Cases in W.D. Texas
Explore related patent infringement actions involving electric fracturing, pressure pumping, and oilfield completion technology litigated in the Western District of Texas.
Related patent case — similar technology
Comparable case in the same technology domain. Patent holder and defendant reached resolution after proceedings.
SettledRelated infringement action — same court
Comparable Halliburton All-Electric Fracturing Fleet-adjacent infringement action. Patent enforcement dynamics analysed in depth.
Active · District CourtRelated invalidity challenge — appellate outcome
Combined invalidity and infringement action in the same technology space. Decided after substantive proceedings.
DecidedHalliburton, Co.’s broader IP enforcement history
Halliburton, Co.’s full litigation history covering prior enforcement, licensing activity, and inter partes review proceedings.
Portfolio viewWhat this case signals for the electric fracturing IP landscape
Seven patents covering electric frac technology, four years of litigation, and no merits ruling — this case carries significant implications for oilfield electrification IP strategy.
Halliburton’s electric frac portfolio remains an active enforcement risk
None of the seven asserted patents were invalidated or adjudicated as non-infringed in this proceeding. Any company developing, deploying, or operating all-electric fracturing equipment should conduct FTO analysis against this portfolio before commercial launch. The Zeus pump patents cover technology that is central to the ongoing oilfield electrification wave.
Operator co-defendants signal broad enforcement strategies in completions
The inclusion of Cimarex Energy Co. as a co-defendant alongside the equipment manufacturer is consistent with a strategy to pursue both maker and user liability. E&P operators deploying third-party electric frac fleets should verify their indemnification provisions and understand their exposure under the patent claims at issue.
IPR activity on any of the seven patents could reshape enforceability
A case of this duration and complexity — seven patents, multi-party, W.D. Texas — strongly suggests parallel USPTO proceedings may have been filed against one or more of the asserted patents. Any IPR institution or final written decision would directly affect the strength of Halliburton’s portfolio against future targets. Monitoring PTAB dockets for these patent numbers is essential for competitors.
Settlement terms, if any, set undisclosed licensing benchmarks for the sector
If the dismissal reflects a confidential settlement, the royalty rates or cross-licensing terms agreed between Halliburton and US Well Services Inc. would represent the most current market benchmark for electric fracturing IP. Competitors negotiating licenses or facing similar assertions should probe what commercial resolution, if any, accompanied ECF No. 501.
Halliburton v US — key questions answered
Halliburton and US Well Services LLC asserted seven patents: US9745840B2, US9611728B2, US8789601B2, US10408030B2, US9970278B2, US9410410B2, and US10337308B2. These patents cover all-electric hydraulic fracturing fleet systems and high-horsepower electric pump technology, including the Zeus Electric Pumps.
The case was closed on March 5, 2025 pursuant to the Court’s Order of Dismissal (ECF No. 501). The basis of termination is recorded as ‘Case Dismissed.’ The public docket does not specify whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice, meaning the precise finality of the resolution cannot be confirmed from publicly available records alone.
Cimarex Energy Co. was named as a co-defendant alongside US Well Services Inc. This is consistent with plaintiff strategies that target both the equipment manufacturer and the end-user operator for infringement liability. E&P operators who deploy third-party electric fracturing equipment can face direct infringement claims under method patents covering operational steps.
The case ran for 1,420 days — just under four years — from filing on April 15, 2021 to closure on March 5, 2025. This duration is above average even for complex multi-patent cases in W.D. Texas before Judge Albright, likely reflecting the seven-patent scope, multi-party structure, and possible parallel USPTO proceedings.
Yes. The dismissal in this case did not result in any ruling on patent validity or non-infringement. All seven asserted patents remain granted and enforceable unless separately invalidated through USPTO inter partes review or other proceedings. Competitors in the electric fracturing space should not treat this dismissal as a clearance event.
Monitor Electric Fracturing IP Before Your Next Fleet Deployment
With seven active Halliburton patents covering electric frac architecture and no validity ruling from this case, FTO gaps remain real for competitors. Use PatSnap Eureka to track enforcement activity and identify claim exposure before commercialising electric fracturing technology.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.