Halliburton v. US Well Services & ProFrac: 10-Patent Electric Frac Fleet Dispute Dismissed
Halliburton and its affiliates brought a 10-patent infringement action against US Well Services and ProFrac Holding in the Western District of Texas, targeting Clean Fleet electric fracturing technology. After 763 days of litigation, the parties jointly moved to dismiss — infringement claims with prejudice, invalidity counterclaims without — each side bearing its own costs.
Halliburton’s 10-Patent Electric Frac Fleet Suit Ends in Split Dismissal
On 1 September 2022, Halliburton Co., Halliburton Group Technologies, Inc., and Halliburton US Technologies, Inc. filed suit against US Well Services, LLC and ProFrac Holding Corp. in the Western District of Texas (Case No. 6:22-cv-00906). The complaint asserted ten patents spanning electric fracturing fleet design, wellsite pump automation, and related oilfield technology, targeting defendants’ Clean Fleet, Nyx Clean Fleet, and conventional fracturing fleets — technology central to the fast-growing electric frac market.
After 763 days, the litigation concluded on 3 October 2024 when the court granted the parties’ Joint Motion to Dismiss. The order created an asymmetric resolution: Halliburton’s infringement claims were dismissed with prejudice, permanently extinguishing those specific causes of action, while US Well Services’ and ProFrac’s declaratory judgment counterclaims of noninfringement, invalidity, and inequitable conduct were dismissed without prejudice, leaving those challenges theoretically available in future proceedings. Each party bore its own costs.
A 763-day duration before joint dismissal — without any reported trial or merits ruling — is consistent with protracted pre-trial skirmishing followed by a negotiated resolution, though the public record does not disclose whether a licensing agreement or business arrangement was reached. The with-prejudice dismissal of infringement claims suggests Halliburton obtained some form of commercial accommodation, but the asymmetric treatment of counterclaims means the validity of its ten patents was never adjudicated and technically remains open to future challenge.
Filing to Case Dismissed in 763 days
763 days — above the median for multi-patent district court cases in W.D. Texas
Split dismissal: what the asymmetric order means for both parties
With-prejudice dismissal bars Halliburton from re-filing these claims
A dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits for procedural purposes — Halliburton cannot refile the same infringement claims against US Well Services or ProFrac for the same accused products under the same patents. The joint motion signals a negotiated exit rather than a unilateral abandonment, typically indicating the parties reached some form of commercial resolution not disclosed in the public record.
Infringement claims: permanently closedHalliburton’s patents survive — validity never decided
Because the invalidity and noninfringement counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice, no court ruled on whether Halliburton’s ten patents are valid or infringed. The patents remain issued and enforceable on their face. Halliburton retains the ability to assert them against other parties, and the absence of an invalidity ruling means competitors cannot point to a merits defeat to undermine the portfolio’s enforceability.
Patent portfolio: intact and re-assertableUSWS and ProFrac escape with validity challenges preserved
The without-prejudice dismissal of defendants’ declaratory judgment counterclaims means US Well Services and ProFrac did not concede validity or infringement, and they retain theoretical standing to challenge these patents in a future proceeding — including via IPR petitions at the USPTO. However, the with-prejudice bar on Halliburton’s infringement claims means they face no immediate re-litigation threat on the same accused products.
Validity challenge: preserved but dormantElectric frac IP competition remains unresolved and high-stakes
The electric fracturing market is rapidly expanding, and Halliburton’s ten-patent portfolio — spanning fleet design, pump automation, and power management — signals an aggressive IP posture in the space. The lack of any merits ruling means rival operators and new entrants cannot rely on this case as precedent for design-arounds. Third parties working with similar electric frac technology should treat this portfolio as live enforcement risk and conduct independent FTO analysis.
Sector risk: portfolio remains actionableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Halliburton, Co. | Company | Global oilfield services company — holder of US11035213B2 and 9 further frac fleet patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Halliburton Group Technologies, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Halliburton US Technologies, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | US Well Services, LLC | Company | US Well Services LLC (electric frac operator) and ProFrac Holding Corp. (parent/acquirer)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | ProFrac Holding, Corp. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Alexander T. Piala | 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 | Jennifer Carter | 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 ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Abelino Reyna | Attorney | Counsel for US Well Services, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Barden Todd Patterson | Attorney | Counsel for US Well Services, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Chad B. Walker | Attorney | Counsel for US Well Services, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | E. Danielle T. Williams | Attorney | Counsel for US Well Services, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Edgar Neil Gonzalez | Attorney | Counsel for US Well Services, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jackson Craig Smith | Attorney | Counsel for US Well Services, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | John Allen Yates | Attorney | Counsel for US Well Services, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | John Tyler Boyce | Attorney | Counsel for US Well Services, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kyle A. Terao | Attorney | Counsel for US Well Services, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kyrie Kimber Cameron | Attorney | Counsel for US Well Services, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Patrick D. Clark | Attorney | Counsel for US Well Services, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Rex A. Mann | Attorney | Counsel for US Well Services, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Richard T. McCarty | Attorney | Counsel for US Well Services, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Steven Ray Laxton | Attorney | Counsel for US Well Services, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Thomas M. Melsheimer | Attorney | Counsel for US Well Services, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Tracea Lachelle Rice | Attorney | Counsel for US Well Services, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Patterson Sheridan LLP | Law Firm | Representing US Well Services, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Winston Strawn LLP | Law Firm | Representing US Well Services, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Winston Strawn LLP (Chicago) | Law Firm | Representing US Well Services, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order distinguishes sharply between the two sets of claims: infringement dismissed with prejudice reflects a final bar on re-litigation, while counterclaims dismissed without prejudice preserve defendants’ ability to challenge patent validity in future proceedings. The asymmetry is legally deliberate and commercially significant — it suggests the parties negotiated exit terms rather than litigating to a merits ruling. No finding on infringement, validity, or inequitable conduct was made, leaving the underlying patent rights undisturbed and enforceable.
US11035213B2 — Electric fracturing fleet control and pump automation technology
The ten asserted patents cover a broad swath of electric and conventional hydraulic fracturing fleet technology, including fleet-level power management, pump automation, fluid end assemblies, and integrated wellsite control systems. Application dates span from the mid-2000s through the late 2010s, reflecting Halliburton’s sustained investment in fracturing technology IP. The portfolio includes two reissue patents (USRE046725E and USRE047695E), which typically signal that Halliburton broadened or clarified claim scope post-grant — a tactic that can expand infringement coverage over later-generation competitor designs.
Strategically, this portfolio positions Halliburton as a dominant IP holder at the intersection of electrification and hydraulic fracturing — one of the most capital-intensive transitions in oilfield services. The specific targeting of Clean Fleet and Nyx Clean Fleet technology suggests the asserted claims are mapped against fleet-level architecture rather than individual components, raising the infringement bar for any operator deploying integrated electric frac systems. With no invalidity ruling, the portfolio presents ongoing risk to US Well Services, ProFrac, and any third-party operator or OEM building on similar electric frac platforms.
Should you run an FTO against Halliburton’s electric frac fleet portfolio?
Any company developing, deploying, or acquiring electric fracturing fleet technology — including pump automation, fleet-level power management, and integrated wellsite control systems — should treat Halliburton’s ten-patent portfolio as active enforcement risk. The lack of any invalidity ruling from this case means no public domain defense exists from this litigation. OEMs supplying electric frac equipment, operators scaling e-frac deployments, and investors evaluating companies in this space should conduct formal FTO analysis before committing capital.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map each of the ten asserted patents against your specific product architecture, identify claim elements most likely to read on electric frac fleet designs, and surface prior art that could support future IPR petitions. Eureka’s portfolio monitoring tools also flag new continuation or continuation-in-part filings from Halliburton that could extend claim coverage into next-generation electric frac designs — giving your team lead time to design around or challenge.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11035213B2 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 cases involving electric fracturing, oilfield pump technology, and wellsite automation litigated in the Western District of Texas.
What this case signals for the electric fracturing IP landscape
A 10-patent suit ending in asymmetric dismissal reveals the strategic calculus shaping IP competition in electric frac technology.
With-prejudice dismissal typically signals a negotiated commercial resolution
When a plaintiff agrees to dismiss infringement claims with prejudice, it almost always signals that something was exchanged — a license, a cross-license, a supply agreement, or an acquisition-related arrangement. Here, ProFrac’s position as acquirer of USWS adds a layer of complexity. IP professionals should treat this outcome as a likely licensed resolution, not a walk-away.
Ten asserted patents with no validity ruling is a significant enforcement asset
Halliburton’s portfolio emerges from this case with no adverse validity finding. All ten patents remain presumptively valid and available for assertion against third parties. Operators deploying electric frac fleets that overlap with Clean Fleet architecture, pump automation, or integrated fleet management systems should run FTO assessments against this portfolio before scaling deployments.
Halliburton v US — key questions answered
The court granted the parties’ Joint Motion to Dismiss. Halliburton’s patent infringement claims were dismissed with prejudice, permanently barring re-filing. Defendants’ declaratory judgment counterclaims of noninfringement, invalidity, and inequitable conduct were dismissed without prejudice. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees.
Dismissal with prejudice — applied to Halliburton’s infringement claims — operates as a final bar: those specific claims cannot be refiled. Dismissal without prejudice — applied to defendants’ invalidity and noninfringement counterclaims — means those challenges were not adjudicated on the merits and could theoretically be raised again in future proceedings, including via USPTO inter partes review petitions.
Halliburton asserted ten patents: US11035213B2, US11377943B2, USRE046725E, US9435333B2, USRE047695E, US7841394B2, US7836949B2, US11085282B2, US11373058B2, and US7574325B2. The portfolio covers electric fracturing fleet control, pump automation, fluid end technology, wellsite power management, and integrated fracturing operations systems.
Halliburton accused US Well Services’ Clean Fleet technology (including the Nyx Clean Fleet — Fleet 17 and subsequent fleets), ProFrac’s electric frac fleets, and ProFrac’s conventional fracturing fleets. The accused products represent the core of US Well Services’ and ProFrac’s electric fracturing service offering.
No. The with-prejudice dismissal only bars Halliburton from reasserting these specific infringement claims against US Well Services and ProFrac for the same accused products. All ten patents remain valid and enforceable on their face, and Halliburton retains full ability to assert them against other operators, OEMs, or new market entrants deploying similar electric fracturing fleet technology.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.