Nabors Drilling v. Helmerich & Payne: Appeal Voluntarily Dismissed in 33 Days
Nabors Drilling Technologies USA filed and then voluntarily abandoned its Federal Circuit appeal against Helmerich & Payne and Motive Drilling Technologies over eight directional drilling and wellbore steering patents. The unopposed motion closed the case in just 33 days, with each side bearing its own costs.
Swift voluntary exit from a high-stakes drilling technology appeal
In December 2023, Nabors Drilling Technologies USA, Inc. brought an appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Case No. 24-1282), challenging prior proceedings in an infringement action against Helmerich & Payne International Drilling Co., Helmerich & Payne Technologies, LLC, and Motive Drilling Technologies, Inc. The dispute centered on eight U.S. patents covering directional drilling control, 3D toolface wellbore steering visualization, drilling scorecard systems, and universal drilling and completion methods.
The appeal was terminated on January 24, 2024, when the Federal Circuit granted Nabors’ unopposed motion to voluntarily dismiss under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b). The court ordered each side to bear its own costs. The basis of termination is recorded as ‘Appeal Dismissed.’ The public record does not specify whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice, a distinction that carries significant consequences for Nabors’ ability to revive related claims.
The 33-day lifespan of this appeal is notably brief, suggesting that a resolution — whether commercial, strategic, or procedural — was reached almost immediately after the notice of appeal was filed. The unopposed nature of the motion indicates defendants did not contest the withdrawal, which may suggest a negotiated resolution or a unilateral strategic decision by Nabors to stand down. What drove that decision remains absent from the public record, making this a case where the docket raises more questions than it answers.
Filing to dismissal in 33 days
33 days — exceptionally fast closure for a Federal Circuit patent appeal
What Nabors’ voluntary dismissal of the appeal means for both sides
Rule 42(b): Voluntary dismissal of a Federal Circuit appeal
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b) permits an appellant to voluntarily dismiss an appeal by filing a signed agreement or motion. Here, Nabors filed an unopposed motion, meaning Helmerich & Payne and Motive Drilling Technologies did not object. The Federal Circuit granted the motion as a matter of course. This mechanism is procedurally clean but leaves the substantive dispute unresolved on the merits.
FRAP Rule 42(b) dismissalWith or without prejudice? The public record is silent
A dismissal with prejudice bars the dismissing party from refiling the same claims; a dismissal without prejudice preserves that right. The court order in this case does not specify which applies. Under FRAP 42(b), voluntary dismissals at the appellate level are not automatically with or without prejudice — the distinction depends on underlying trial-court posture and any private agreement between parties. Practitioners monitoring Nabors’ enforcement posture should treat this as an open question.
Prejudice status unconfirmedEach side bears its own costs — no prevailing party signal
The court’s cost order — each side bear its own costs — is the default disposition in a voluntary dismissal and does not imply fault, weakness, or concession by either party. It also means no attorney fee award was made under 35 U.S.C. § 285. In patent appeals, a mutual cost-bearing order is consistent with a negotiated settlement or a simple strategic withdrawal, and should not be read as a finding against Nabors.
No § 285 fee awardUnopposed motion: what defendants’ silence may suggest
When a defendant does not oppose a voluntary dismissal, it typically signals either that a private agreement is in place, or that the defendant prefers the case to end rather than risk an unfavorable appellate ruling. Given the eight-patent scope of the underlying dispute and the involvement of Motive Drilling Technologies as a co-defendant, the lack of opposition is consistent with a negotiated commercial resolution — though no settlement has been disclosed in the public record.
Possible undisclosed resolutionFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Nabors Drilling Technologies USA, Inc. | Company | Oilfield technology company — holder of US7860593 and 7 related directional drilling patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Helmerich & Payne International Drilling, Co. | Company | Helmerich & Payne International Drilling Co. and affiliates, including Motive Drilling TechnologiesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Debra Janece McComas | Attorney | Counsel for Nabors Drilling Technologies USA, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Douglas Mark Kubehl | Attorney | Counsel for Helmerich & Payne International Drilling, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Barbara M.G. Lynn | Chief Judge | Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Stipulation of dismissal — official text
The court’s order grants Nabors’ own motion to dismiss the appeal and directs each side to bear its own costs. Critically, the order resolves only the appellate proceeding — it does not adjudicate infringement, validity, or damages on the merits. The ‘unopposed’ characterization indicates Helmerich & Payne consented to or at minimum did not contest the exit, which is procedurally unusual enough to suggest a background arrangement. The absence of a prejudice specification leaves Nabors’ future enforcement options legally ambiguous.
US7860593 and 7 related patents — directional drilling control systems
The eight patents asserted in this case span a coordinated technology cluster covering directional drilling control, 3D toolface visualization, wellbore steering guidance, drilling scorecard analytics, and universal drilling and completion workflows. Application numbers suggest filings between approximately 2007 and 2010 — a period of rapid automation investment in oilfield services. Together, the patents describe systems and methods for real-time downhole orientation feedback, automated steering decisions, and integrated drilling execution platforms used in horizontal and directional well construction.
For the oilfield services sector, this patent cluster represents meaningful IP infrastructure around the automation of directional drilling — one of the highest-value technical differentiators among drilling contractors. Nabors’ decision to assert all eight patents simultaneously against both an operator (Helmerich & Payne) and a software supplier (Motive Drilling Technologies) signals a broad enforcement posture. Any company developing or licensing directional drilling automation software, toolface control hardware, or wellbore visualization tools should treat this portfolio as an active enforcement risk requiring systematic monitoring.
Should you run an FTO against the Nabors directional drilling patent cluster?
If your R&D or product team operates in directional drilling control, real-time toolface visualization, automated wellbore steering, or drilling analytics, the eight patents at issue in this case represent a live freedom-to-operate risk. Nabors demonstrated willingness to assert these patents against a major drilling contractor and its technology partner simultaneously. The voluntary dismissal of this appeal does not constitute a covenant not to sue — the patents remain in force and enforceable.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows you to map your product’s technical features against the claim language of all eight patents in this cluster in a single workflow. You can identify which independent claims present the highest overlap risk, track any continuation or divisional applications filed by Nabors in this family, and set automated alerts if new claims issue. For supply-chain participants selling directional drilling software or hardware to major operators, this kind of systematic claim monitoring is essential due diligence.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7860593 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar directional drilling patent disputes at the Federal Circuit
PatSnap Eureka tracks related litigation across truck body equipment, vehicle accessories, and comparable infringement actions in the Georgia district system.
What this case signals for the directional drilling IP landscape
Eight patents, three defendants, and a 33-day appeal lifetime — the Nabors v. H&P docket rewards close reading.
Eight-patent portfolios create leverage — and complex exit dynamics
Nabors asserted eight distinct patents spanning toolface visualization, directional control algorithms, and drilling execution systems. Portfolios of this breadth are typically deployed to maximize nuisance cost and settlement pressure. When the plaintiff then voluntarily exits at appeal, it suggests either the leverage objective was achieved or the appellate merits were unfavorable — both scenarios carry strategic lessons for portfolio managers in oilfield technology.
Motive Drilling Technologies’ involvement signals a supply-chain IP risk
Motive Drilling Technologies, a software-focused drilling optimization company, was named as a co-defendant alongside Helmerich & Payne. This is consistent with a litigation strategy targeting both the operator and its technology supplier. Companies providing directional drilling software or automation tools to major drillers should assess their exposure to the eight patents listed in this case, particularly given Nabors’ demonstrated willingness to assert them broadly.
Nabors v Helmerich — key questions answered
Nabors Drilling Technologies USA filed an appeal at the Federal Circuit in December 2023 in an infringement action involving eight directional drilling patents. On January 24, 2024, the court granted Nabors’ own unopposed motion to voluntarily dismiss the appeal under FRAP Rule 42(b). Each party was ordered to bear its own costs. The underlying merits were not adjudicated on appeal.
Nabors asserted eight U.S. patents: US7860593, US8528663, US10672154, US7823655, US8510081, US8360171, US7802634, and US7938197. These patents cover directional drilling control systems, 3D toolface wellbore steering visualization, apparatus for guiding toolface orientation, drilling scorecard systems, and universal drilling and completion platforms.
The public court order does not specify whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice. The order states only that the motion is granted and the appeal is dismissed, with costs borne by each side. The prejudice status — which determines whether Nabors can refile related claims — remains unresolved in the publicly available record.
Motive Drilling Technologies, a directional drilling software company, was named as a co-defendant alongside Helmerich & Payne International Drilling Co. and Helmerich & Payne Technologies, LLC. This is consistent with a litigation strategy targeting both an operator and its technology supplier. The inclusion of a software provider suggests Nabors’ patents cover system-level methods potentially practiced by both the hardware operator and software platform vendor.
A Federal Circuit appeal resolved by voluntary dismissal within 33 days of filing typically suggests one of two scenarios: a negotiated resolution reached shortly after the appeal was filed, or a unilateral strategic decision by the appellant to withdraw. The unopposed nature of the motion in this case — defendants did not object — is consistent with a background agreement, though no settlement or license has been publicly disclosed.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.