Book a demo

Cut patent&paper research from weeks to hours with PatSnap Eureka AI!

Try now
Halliburton v. US Well Services — Electric Fracturing Patent Dispute | PatSnap
Explore in Eureka
Case ID6:21-cv-00367
FiledApr 2021
ClosedMar 2025
Patent Litigation

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.

Resolution time
1420days
Nearly 4 years — above average for W.D. Texas patent cases
Patents asserted
7
US9745840B2 and 6 further patents asserted covering electric fracturing technology
Outcome
Case Dismissed
Case dismissed per Court’s Order of Dismissal; public record silent on prejudice terms
Cost ruling
Not Specified
No costs or fee award specified in the public record
Published by PatSnap Insights Team · Verified by PatSnap Eureka Data
Case overview

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.

Case at a glance
Case no.6:21-cv-00367
CourtTexas Western
JudgeAlan D Albright
FiledApril 15, 2021
ClosedMarch 5, 2025
Duration1420 days
OutcomeCase Dismissed
Verdict causeInfringement Action
BasisCase Dismissed
Prior Art Intelligence
See what prior art exists on this patent.
Eureka scans millions of patents and papers to surface prior art that may have invalidated these claims before costly litigation begins.
Check Prior Art
Case data sourced from PACER / Texas Western District Court via PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore similar cases ↗
Case timeline

Filing to Case Dismissed in 1420 days

Nearly 4 years — above average for W.D. Texas patent cases

Case timeline: Complaint filed APR 15 2021, MAR–APR — 1420 days total Horizontal timeline showing the three key events in Halliburton, Co. v US WELL SERVICES, INC. from filing to resolution. Source: PACER, Texas Western District Court. APR 15 2021 Complaint filed Pre-trial proceedings MAR 5 2025 Case Dismissed 1420 DAYS TOTAL
Dismissal terms

Case dismissed: what the Order of Dismissal means for both parties

Legal mechanism

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 adjudication
Prejudice status

With 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 unconfirmed
Defendant outcome

US 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 finding
Commercial implications

Seven 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 live
Legal analysis based on PACER docket records for case 6:21-cv-00367 and PatSnap Eureka litigation intelligence Search PatSnap Eureka ↗
Parties and representation

Full party and counsel information

RoleNameTypeDetail
PlaintiffHalliburton, Co.CompanyOilfield services and electric fracturing technology — holder of US9745840B2 and 6 further patentsSearch in Eureka ↗
Co-PlaintiffUS Well Services, LLCCompanySearch in Eureka ↗
DefendantUS WELL SERVICES, INC.CompanyUS Well Services Inc., electric pressure pumping competitor; Cimarex Energy Co., operator co-defendantSearch in Eureka ↗
Co-DefendantCimarex Energy Co.CompanySearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselAlexander T. PialaAttorneyCounsel for Halliburton, Co.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselAndrea L. FairAttorneyCounsel for Halliburton, Co.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselBrandon ChenAttorneyCounsel for Halliburton, Co.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselChristian Taylor TatumAttorneyCounsel for Halliburton, Co.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselDavid Joshua TobinAttorneyCounsel for Halliburton, Co.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselDavid M. GenenderAttorneyCounsel for Halliburton, Co.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselGregory Phillip LoveAttorneyCounsel for Halliburton, Co.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselJennifer CarterAttorneyCounsel for Halliburton, Co.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselJordan A. KazlowAttorneyCounsel for Halliburton, Co.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselKirstie WallaceAttorneyCounsel for Halliburton, Co.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselLindsay Volpenhein CutieAttorneyCounsel for Halliburton, Co.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselMark D. SiegmundAttorneyCounsel for Halliburton, Co.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselMichael HawesAttorneyCounsel for Halliburton, Co.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselRoger J. FulghumAttorneyCounsel for Halliburton, Co.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselSusan Cannon KennedyAttorneyCounsel for Halliburton, Co.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselSyed K. FareedAttorneyCounsel for Halliburton, Co.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselWesley D. EdwardsAttorneyCounsel for Halliburton, Co.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmBaker Botts LLPLaw FirmRepresenting Halliburton, Co.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmCherry Johnson Siegmund James PLLCLaw FirmRepresenting Halliburton, Co.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmMcDermott Will & Emery LLPLaw FirmRepresenting Halliburton, Co.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmMiller Fair Henry PLLCLaw FirmRepresenting Halliburton, Co.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmSteckler Wayne Cherry & Love PLLCLaw FirmRepresenting Halliburton, Co.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselAbelino ReynaAttorneyCounsel for US WELL SERVICES, INC.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselAustin SaathoffAttorneyCounsel for US WELL SERVICES, INC.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselBarden Todd PattersonAttorneyCounsel for US WELL SERVICES, INC.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselBrooke C. WilsonAttorneyCounsel for US WELL SERVICES, INC.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselE. Danielle T. WilliamsAttorneyCounsel for US WELL SERVICES, INC.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselEdgar Neil GonzalezAttorneyCounsel for US WELL SERVICES, INC.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselJackson Craig SmithAttorneyCounsel for US WELL SERVICES, INC.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselJervonne D. NewsomeAttorneyCounsel for US WELL SERVICES, INC.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselJohn Allen YatesAttorneyCounsel for US WELL SERVICES, INC.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselJohn H. Barr , Jr.AttorneyCounsel for US WELL SERVICES, INC.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselJohn Tyler BoyceAttorneyCounsel for US WELL SERVICES, INC.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselJoshua Hain ParkAttorneyCounsel for US WELL SERVICES, INC.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselKyrie Kimber CameronAttorneyCounsel for US WELL SERVICES, INC.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselRex A. MannAttorneyCounsel for US WELL SERVICES, INC.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselRichard McCartyAttorneyCounsel for US WELL SERVICES, INC.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselSteven Ray LaxtonAttorneyCounsel for US WELL SERVICES, INC.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselThomas M. MelsheimerAttorneyCounsel for US WELL SERVICES, INC.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselTracea Lachelle RiceAttorneyCounsel for US WELL SERVICES, INC.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant law firmMeade Neese & Barr LLPLaw FirmRepresenting US WELL SERVICES, INC.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant law firmPatterson & Sheridan LLPLaw FirmRepresenting US WELL SERVICES, INC.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant law firmWinston Strawn LLPLaw FirmRepresenting US WELL SERVICES, INC.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant law firmWinston Strawn LLP (Chicago)Law FirmRepresenting US WELL SERVICES, INC.Search in Eureka ↗
Presiding judgeJudge Alan D AlbrightJudgeTexas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗
Official verdict

Official order — verbatim text

“In light of the Court’s Order of Dismissal (ECF No. 501), the Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.”
Source: PACER Docket, Case 6:21-cv-00367, Texas Western District Court

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.

PACER case 6:21-cv-00367 · Public docket record Explore in Eureka ↗
Patent at issue

US9745840B2 and Six Further Patents — Electric Hydraulic Fracturing Systems

Publication No.US9745840B2
Application No.US15/291842
Patent details
ProductAll-electric hydraulic fracturing fleet systems and control methods
Cited in actionApril 15, 2021

Publication No.US9611728B2
Application No.US15/145440
Patent details
ProductElectric powered pressure pumping systems for hydraulic fracturing
Cited in actionApril 15, 2021

Publication No.US8789601B2
Application No.US14/190982
Patent details
ProductElectric fracturing equipment and wellsite power management
Cited in actionApril 15, 2021

Publication No.US10408030B2
Application No.US15/653028
Patent details
ProductHigh-horsepower electric frac pump design and operation
Cited in actionApril 15, 2021

Publication No.US9970278B2
Application No.US14/884363
Patent details
ProductElectric drive systems for oilfield pressure pumping applications
Cited in actionApril 15, 2021

Publication No.US9410410B2
Application No.US13/679689
Patent details
ProductElectric fracturing fleet architecture and variable frequency drive control
Cited in actionApril 15, 2021

Publication No.US10337308B2
Application No.US15/202085
Patent details
ProductAll-electric frac fleet power distribution and pump coordination
Cited in actionApril 15, 2021

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.

Patent data sourced from USPTO via PatSnap Eureka patent database Search patent records in Eureka ↗
Freedom to operate

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.

PatSnap Eureka FTO Search

Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9745840B2 to assess your product’s exposure

Run FTO in Eureka →
Related litigation

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.

🔍
Access 40+ similar cases in PatSnap Eureka
Halliburton, Co. patent enforcement history, Texas Western case history, Halliburton, Co.’s full IP portfolio, and comparable case analysis
Electric frac patent casesW.D. Texas oilfield IP suitsHalliburton patent historyPressure pumping IP disputes
Unlock similar cases in Eureka →
Strategic implications

What 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.

🔒
Full strategic analysis in PatSnap Eureka
Unlock deeper strategic analysis of this W.D. Texas electric fracturing patent dispute, including PTAB risk signals and enforcement benchmarks for the oilfield services sector.
IPR exposure analysisLicensing benchmark signalsFuture enforcement targets
Unlock full analysis →
Analysis powered by PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore in Eureka ↗
Frequently asked questions

Halliburton v US — key questions answered

Still have questions? PatSnap Eureka can answer them instantly from patent and litigation data. Ask Eureka ↗
PatSnap Eureka

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.

Ask anything about this case.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.
Powered by PatSnap Eureka
Link copied to clipboard

Related Litigation Cases

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.