Halliburton v. US Well Services & ProFrac: Electric Frac Patent Dispute Ends at 763 Days
Halliburton and its affiliates asserted six patents — including multiple reissue patents — covering electric frac pumps, blenders, and corrosion-resistant pumping systems against US Well Services and ProFrac in W.D. Texas. After 763 days of litigation before Judge Alan Albright, all infringement claims were dismissed with prejudice via joint motion, with each party bearing its own costs.
Six Electric Frac Patents, Two Oilfield Rivals, One Joint Exit
Filed on 1 September 2022, this case placed Halliburton Co. — alongside affiliates Halliburton Group Technologies, Halliburton Technology Partners, and Halliburton US Technologies — in direct conflict with US Well Services LLC and ProFrac Services LLC before Judge Alan Albright in the Western District of Texas. At stake were six patents covering core electric hydraulic fracturing technologies: electric blenders, electric frac pumps, electric pumpdown systems, corrosion-resistant pumping fleet components, mobile command infrastructure, and sand and fluid handling equipment.
The case resolved on 3 October 2024 through a joint motion to dismiss. Judge Albright granted the motion, ordering all patent infringement claims dismissed with prejudice — meaning Halliburton cannot re-file the same infringement claims on these patents against these defendants. Notably, all declaratory judgment counterclaims for noninfringement, invalidity, or inequitable conduct were dismissed without prejudice, leaving those issues technically unresolved on the merits and potentially re-litigable in different circumstances. Each party bears its own costs, a structure consistent with a negotiated resolution.
At 763 days, the case ran longer than many W.D. Texas patent matters that settle early, suggesting substantive litigation activity — likely claim construction, discovery, and potentially IPR proceedings — before the parties reached resolution. The simultaneous dismissal of invalidity and inequitable conduct counterclaims without prejudice is commercially significant: it preserves some defensive optionality for the defendants while not validating Halliburton’s patents through a merits ruling. The specific financial terms, if any, underlying the joint dismissal are not reflected in the public record.
Filing to Case Dismissed in 763 days
763 days — above the median W.D. Texas patent case duration, suggesting extended merits litigation before resolution
Joint dismissal with prejudice: what the split order means for both sides
Split dismissal: infringement out with prejudice, defenses preserved
The Court granted a joint motion to dismiss under a split structure: all infringement claims were dismissed with prejudice — permanently barring Halliburton from re-asserting the same claims against these defendants — while all declaratory judgment counterclaims for noninfringement, invalidity, and inequitable conduct were dismissed without prejudice. This asymmetric structure is a common feature of negotiated resolutions and reflects deliberate bargaining over litigation finality.
Negotiated joint dismissalHalliburton’s infringement claims end permanently against these defendants
The with-prejudice dismissal of infringement claims forecloses Halliburton from re-filing the same patent assertions against US Well Services and ProFrac in relation to this litigation. However, the patents themselves remain in force and enforceable against other parties. The absence of any cost award against Halliburton suggests neither a finding of exceptional case nor a capitulation — the outcome is consistent with a commercial settlement rather than litigation defeat.
Patents survive; claims extinguished vs. these defendantsDefendants exit without invalidity ruling, preserving some future optionality
US Well Services and ProFrac secured dismissal of the infringement claims with prejudice, effectively ending Halliburton’s enforcement action against them on these patents. Critically, their declaratory judgment counterclaims — including invalidity and inequitable conduct — were dismissed without prejudice, meaning they were not adjudicated on the merits. This preserves, in principle, the ability to raise validity challenges in future proceedings, though the practical path for doing so post-dismissal is narrow.
No validity ruling; freed from infringement exposureElectric frac IP landscape: Halliburton’s portfolio remains active threat
With six patents — including four reissue patents suggesting deliberate claim broadening — still enforceable, Halliburton’s electric frac IP portfolio remains a material risk for other operators deploying electric blenders, pumps, or corrosion-resistant fleet systems. The reissue patent strategy signals active portfolio management. Competitors in the electric hydraulic fracturing space, particularly those with similar product configurations to US Well Services, should treat this litigation as a signal of Halliburton’s enforcement posture rather than a retreat.
Reissue portfolio still enforceable vs. third partiesFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Halliburton, Co. | Company | Oilfield services major — holder of USRE049155E and 5 further electric frac system patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Halliburton Group Technologies, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Halliburton Technology Partners, LLC | 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 Services LLC (oilfield pumping services)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | ProFrac Services, LLC | 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 | Deron R. Dacus | 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 | 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 | The Dacus Firm PC | 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 | Brian J. Nisbet | Attorney | Counsel for US Well Services, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Brooke C. Wilson | 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 | Devin P. Garrity | 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 | Olivia A. Wogon | 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 | Samuel Wade Riebe | 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 ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Winston & Strawn/Dallas | Law Firm | Representing US Well Services, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Alan D Albright | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The Court’s order reflects a carefully negotiated split: infringement claims dismissed with prejudice creates res judicata finality for the defendants on those specific claims, while the without-prejudice dismissal of invalidity and inequitable conduct counterclaims leaves the patents’ validity untested by a court. Neither party obtained a merits ruling. The mutual cost-bearing provision is consistent with a commercially negotiated exit rather than a litigation outcome favouring either side, and the public record does not disclose any underlying licensing or settlement terms.
USRE049155E — Electric hydraulic fracturing pump systems (reissue)
The asserted portfolio centres on electric hydraulic fracturing technology — systems replacing diesel-powered frac pumps with electrically driven alternatives, a major transition underway across the North American pressure pumping market. Four of the six patents are reissue patents (USRE049155E, USRE049140E, USRE049156E, USRE049083E), indicating Halliburton has returned to the USPTO to correct or broaden original claims. The inclusion of US9435333B2 and US7931082B2 as original-grant patents anchors the portfolio in earlier-priority applications, suggesting broad temporal coverage of the technology.
Halliburton’s reissue strategy is commercially significant: reissue patents can capture product configurations that post-date the original filing, making them particularly dangerous in fast-moving markets like electric frac where hardware architectures have evolved rapidly. The products identified in this case — electric blenders, frac pumps, pumpdown systems, corrosion-resistant fleet components, mobile command centres, and sand/fluid handling equipment — span virtually the entire electric frac surface footprint, indicating Halliburton is asserting broad system-level coverage rather than a single component claim.
Should you run an FTO against USRE049155E and Halliburton’s electric frac portfolio?
Any company designing, deploying, or acquiring electric frac pumping equipment — including electric blenders, pumpdown systems, or corrosion-resistant fleet components — faces direct exposure to Halliburton’s six-patent portfolio. The four reissue patents are particularly high-priority for FTO review, as reissued claims may cover current-generation product configurations that post-date the original filing. ProFrac, TETRA Technologies, NexTier, and any operator running electrically driven frac fleets should treat this portfolio as an active enforcement risk.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map each asserted claim in USRE049155E, USRE049140E, USRE049156E, USRE049083E, US9435333B2, and US7931082B2 against your product specifications, flagging overlap and identifying potential design-arounds. Eureka also surfaces prior art that was not raised in this litigation — including the unresolved invalidity counterclaims — providing both clearance analysis and inter partes review strategy inputs in a single workflow.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USRE049155E to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar electric frac patent disputes in W.D. Texas and related courts
Cases involving electric hydraulic fracturing IP, pressure pumping systems, and oilfield equipment patents litigated in the Western District of Texas before Judge Albright.
What this case signals for the electric frac IP landscape
Six reissue-heavy patents, a 763-day fight, and a split dismissal — this case carries clear signals for electric fracturing competitors.
Reissue patents indicate deliberate claim expansion by Halliburton
Four of the six asserted patents are reissue patents (USRE-series), which are granted when a patentee corrects or broadens claims post-issuance. This pattern consistently signals active portfolio management aimed at capturing emerging commercial embodiments — in this case, the rapidly evolving electric frac market. Any operator deploying electric pumping systems should audit claim scope against these reissued claims.
W.D. Texas / Judge Albright venue still favours patent plaintiffs
Halliburton’s choice of Judge Albright’s court — historically one of the most plaintiff-friendly patent venues in the US — reflects a deliberate enforcement strategy. Despite the ultimate joint dismissal, the venue selection itself creates litigation cost pressure on defendants. Companies in the oilfield services sector should factor W.D. Texas exposure into their IP risk models when designing electric frac products.
Halliburton v US — key questions answered
The case was dismissed via joint motion on 3 October 2024. All of Halliburton’s patent infringement claims were dismissed with prejudice, permanently barring re-filing against these defendants. Declaratory judgment counterclaims for noninfringement, invalidity, and inequitable conduct were dismissed without prejudice. Each party bears its own costs.
Halliburton asserted six patents: USRE049155E, US9435333B2, US7931082B2, USRE049140E, USRE049156E, and USRE049083E. Four are reissue patents, indicating post-issuance claim broadening. The patents cover electric frac pumps, blenders, pumpdown systems, corrosion-resistant fleet components, mobile command centres, and sand and fluid handling equipment.
Dismissed with prejudice means Halliburton is permanently barred from re-asserting the same patent infringement claims against US Well Services LLC and ProFrac Services LLC arising from this litigation. The patents themselves remain valid and enforceable against third parties — only these specific defendants receive finality on the infringement claims.
The declaratory judgment claims for noninfringement, invalidity, and inequitable conduct were dismissed without prejudice, meaning they were not adjudicated on the merits. This is consistent with a negotiated resolution where defendants secured finality on the enforcement threat but did not obtain a court ruling invalidating Halliburton’s patents. The public record does not disclose why this structure was chosen.
Halliburton’s four reissue patents (USRE049155E, USRE049140E, USRE049156E, USRE049083E) remain enforceable following the dismissal. Reissue patents can carry broadened claims covering current product configurations. Any third party deploying electric frac pumps, blenders, or corrosion-resistant fleet systems should conduct FTO analysis against these patents before product launch or fleet deployment.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.