Podcasts about oil states

In this week's episode, recorded live from HFTC, we delve into the cutting-edge advancements shaking up the oil and gas industry. Join us as Patrick McKeever and Zach Wade, from Oil States and Geodynamics respectively, unveil their latest innovations aimed at revolutionizing efficiency and safety in oilfield operations. From Oil States' groundbreaking Active Seat Gate Valve and its move towards automation with the ACTIVEHub platform, to GEODynamics' introduction of a new family of precision and flexible perforating equipment, learn how these technologies are setting new standards for operational excellence.

China posing CIPS as an alternative to SWIFT & promoting trade with the Middle East in yuan adds to challenge to US image of global financial superpower. In Episode 1284 of Cut The Clutter, Editor-in-Chief Shekhar Gupta adds context to Fitch downgrading default rating for US from 'AAA' to 'AA+'.

Join the insightful discussion in this podcast episode as World Oil's technical editor, Craig Fleming, and host Jim Watkins interview experts from multiple teams at Oil States International about their cutting-edge valve technology and their foray into the floating wind market. They delve into the value and benefits of Oil States' valve technology, including significant grease reduction and prevention of post-job damage tickets. The conversation then transitions to their latest innovation, the Floating Wind Platform Design (FTLP), aimed at mid-water depths. Discover how Oil States has applied their expertise in tension leg platform (TLP) technology to create a stable and cost-effective solution for the growing floating wind market. The episode also touches on their deep-sea minerals systems and their successful deployment of a sub-sea vacuum cleaner system for harvesting poly-metallic nodules. Don't miss this fascinating exploration of Oil States' diverse portfolio and their contributions to multiple energy sectors.

Kicking off our series of episodes recorded live at the Offshore Technology Conference (OTC) in Houston, TX, join the Energy in Transition hosts Josh Lowrey and Dan Pickering, as they sit down with Cindy Taylor, President and CEO of Oil States International, to discuss the industry's future. Cindy shares exciting advancements in technology and sustainability initiatives at Oil States, highlighting their commitment to innovation. She also offers her perspective on the energy transition and the role of conventional fuels in this transformative phase. Additionally, Cindy imparts valuable advice for emerging professionals in the energy business, drawing from her own experiences and successes. Don't miss this engaging conversation as Cindy Taylor, Josh Lowrey, and Dan Pickering explore innovation, the energy transition, and career guidance in the dynamic energy industry. Tune in to gain valuable insights for the road ahead. Thank you to our sponsors: Pickering Energy Partners https://pickeringenergypartners.com/ Energy Workforce & Technology Council https://energyworkforce.org/ Preng & Associates https://www.preng.com/ ClearSync Soltuions  https://www.csyncs.com World Oil https://worldoil.com For more information on the production of this podcast, visit https://uprightdigital.com/

You may not find a bigger Texas A&M University alum aka "Aggie" in the energy business than Cindy Taylor, President and CEO of Oil States International, as well as board member to AT&T and the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, who recently joined David de Roode and Jim Wicklund on this episode of the Oilfield 360 podcast. Cindy, Jim and David cover the waterfront - discussing her past, her passion for the oil and gas industry, her worldly travels, Her time at SCF Partners, her roles as CFO and now CEO at Oil States as well as her board position at AT&T as well as the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. You wont want to miss this episode.

Rulers of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are refusing to talk to President Joe Biden or help stabilize oil markets, upset by his support for Iran's nuclear program. 5) Poland deals setback to plan to send fighter jets to Poland; 4) Biolabs in Ukraine; 3) Israel's President Isaac Herzog meets with Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan; 2) Leaders of Saudi Arabia, UAE refuse to talk to President Biden; 1) New York Times reporter admits his reporting on January 6, 2021 incident at US Capitol is false.

In Thryv, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Technologies, LP (Supreme Court, April 20, 2020), the Supreme Court held that the Patent Office decision to hear an inter partes review (“IPR”) challenge is not subject to judicial review on time-bar grounds. The majority found that ruling otherwise would “unwind the agency’s merits decision” and “operate to save bad patent claims.”While this case deals largely with an issue of IPR appellate procedure, it should be interesting to a wider audience because it illustrates the Justices' disparate views on a key question: are issued patents property?In a strongly worded dissent, Justice Gorsuch argued that the Constitution does not permit a “politically guided agency” (here the Patent Office) to revoke a property right (like an issued patent) without judicial review. He analogized issued patents to the land patents that the government once granted to “homesteaders who moved west.” He expressed his view that since the Court would not “allow a bureaucracy in Washington to ‘cancel’ a citizen’s right to his farm…” the Court should not allow the Patent Office to cancel an issued patent (especially without judicial review). Justice Gorsuch’s dissent argued against the core principles established in the Supreme Court’s Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, 584 U. S. ___ (2018) decision—where he also dissented. In Oil States, the Supreme Court held that patents are not “property rights” in the traditional sense, but rather are “public franchises” granted (and subject to revocation) by the government. Oil States left, for another day, the question of whether compensation is required, and in what circumstances, when the government acts to revoke a previously granted patent.In response to Justice Gorsuch’s dissent, the majority asserted that:The dissent acknowledges that “Congress authorized inter partes review to encourage further scrutiny of already issued patents.” . . . The second look Congress put in place is assigned to the very same bureaucracy that granted the patent in the first place. Why should that bureaucracy be trusted to give an honest count on first view, but a jaundiced one on second look?The majority reached its conclusion – the Patent Office’s decision to hear an IPR challenge is not reviewable on time-bar grounds – in harmony with the expressed purpose of IPR reviews: making it easier to eliminate “bad patents” and to prevent the “wast[e] of resources spent resolving patentability.” Essentially, majority concluded that if the patent owner was able to challenge the PTO’s decision to cancel a patent on the merits – as opposed to on the procedure – she would do so (and such merits based challenges are subject to judicial review).Please join our expert, Daniel L. Geyser, in a discussion of the oral argument. Dan represented Click-to-Call Technologies, LP, in the Supreme Court.Featuring:-- Mr. Daniel L. Geyser, Chair, Supreme Court and Appellate Practice, Geyser, P.C.

In Thryv, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Technologies, LP (Supreme Court, April 20, 2020), the Supreme Court held that the Patent Office decision to hear an inter partes review (“IPR”) challenge is not subject to judicial review on time-bar grounds. The majority found that ruling otherwise would “unwind the agency’s merits decision” and “operate to save bad patent claims.”While this case deals largely with an issue of IPR appellate procedure, it should be interesting to a wider audience because it illustrates the Justices' disparate views on a key question: are issued patents property?In a strongly worded dissent, Justice Gorsuch argued that the Constitution does not permit a “politically guided agency” (here the Patent Office) to revoke a property right (like an issued patent) without judicial review. He analogized issued patents to the land patents that the government once granted to “homesteaders who moved west.” He expressed his view that since the Court would not “allow a bureaucracy in Washington to ‘cancel’ a citizen’s right to his farm…” the Court should not allow the Patent Office to cancel an issued patent (especially without judicial review). Justice Gorsuch’s dissent argued against the core principles established in the Supreme Court’s Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, 584 U. S. ___ (2018) decision—where he also dissented. In Oil States, the Supreme Court held that patents are not “property rights” in the traditional sense, but rather are “public franchises” granted (and subject to revocation) by the government. Oil States left, for another day, the question of whether compensation is required, and in what circumstances, when the government acts to revoke a previously granted patent.In response to Justice Gorsuch’s dissent, the majority asserted that:The dissent acknowledges that “Congress authorized inter partes review to encourage further scrutiny of already issued patents.” . . . The second look Congress put in place is assigned to the very same bureaucracy that granted the patent in the first place. Why should that bureaucracy be trusted to give an honest count on first view, but a jaundiced one on second look?The majority reached its conclusion – the Patent Office’s decision to hear an IPR challenge is not reviewable on time-bar grounds – in harmony with the expressed purpose of IPR reviews: making it easier to eliminate “bad patents” and to prevent the “wast[e] of resources spent resolving patentability.” Essentially, majority concluded that if the patent owner was able to challenge the PTO’s decision to cancel a patent on the merits – as opposed to on the procedure – she would do so (and such merits based challenges are subject to judicial review).Please join our expert, Daniel L. Geyser, in a discussion of the oral argument. Dan represented Click-to-Call Technologies, LP, in the Supreme Court.Featuring:-- Mr. Daniel L. Geyser, Chair, Supreme Court and Appellate Practice, Geyser, P.C.

Patent review, and article 3 separation of powers.

This is the Big One: Oil States and SAS decisions are in from the Supreme Court and Brad and David will break it all down for you.

IP Frequently – where, while always fair, nothing is off limits. We invite you to join the conversation. Check in with Brad Sheafe, Chief Intellectual Property Officer (CIPO) and David Pridham, CEO of Dominion Harbor, respectively. This is the Big One: Oil States and SAS decisions are in from the Supreme Court and Brad and […]

Check in with Brad Sheafe, Chief Intellectual Property Officer (CIPO) and David Pridham, CEO of Dominion Harbor, respectively. And on this episode a special guest appearance by Matt Delgiorno, President of Dominion Harbor. As always, nothing is off limits and the guys take on Oil States case before SCOTUS, Andre Iancu – New Director in waiting for the USPTO, PTAB, of course: panel stacking, judges with obvious conflicts, maybe Congress will engage, the Federal Circuit among other tantalizing topics including the Jersey Shore in the summertime.

Oil States Energy Services v. Greene’s Energy GroupHas the administrative state gone too far into disputes over innovation and technology? That question animates Oil States Energy Services v. Greene’s Energy Group. The Supreme Court will hear arguments on Monday, November 27 over whether the Patent Trial & Appeal Board violates the Constitution by extinguishing private property rights through a non-Article III forum without a jury. SAS Institute v. MatalIn SAS Institute v. Matal, the question presented is, in the context of post-grant review of a patent under the America Invents Act (“AIA”), whether the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) must issue a final written decision on the validity of every patent claim challenged, or can the PTAB rule on only some of the patent claims challenged. This case involves a relatively confined question of statutory construction, but, assuming the Supreme Court does not dismantle the AIA’s post-grant review system in Oil States, SAS Institute has the potential to dramatically change post-grant patent challenges. The statute at issue, 35 U.S.C. 318(a), mandates: “If an inter partes review is instituted . . . , the Patent Trial and Appeal Board shall issue a final written decision with respect to the patentability of any patent claim challenged by the petitioner . . . .” The Patent Office interprets this provision to mean that the PTAB need provide a final written decision on only the claims the PTAB reviews in full. Thus, under current practice, a patent challenger can ask the PTAB to cancel all claims of a patent when filing an IPR petition, but the PTAB may institute full review of only some of the claims. The final written decision is limited to only those claims the PTAB reviews in full. Petitioner in SAS Institute challenges this practice, arguing that the plain text of the statute, along with the statutory text and purpose, requires a decision on all challenged claims. The case has important implications about the AIA process, the degree to which AIA review of patents creates finality to patent validity determinations, and the applicability of Chevron deference to the Patent Office’s rules and procedures.Featuring:Mr. Matthew J. Dowd, Founder, Dowd PLLCMr. Brian H. Pandya, Partner, Wiley Rein Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

Oil States Energy Services v. Greene’s Energy GroupHas the administrative state gone too far into disputes over innovation and technology? That question animates Oil States Energy Services v. Greene’s Energy Group. The Supreme Court will hear arguments on Monday, November 27 over whether the Patent Trial & Appeal Board violates the Constitution by extinguishing private property rights through a non-Article III forum without a jury. SAS Institute v. MatalIn SAS Institute v. Matal, the question presented is, in the context of post-grant review of a patent under the America Invents Act (“AIA”), whether the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) must issue a final written decision on the validity of every patent claim challenged, or can the PTAB rule on only some of the patent claims challenged. This case involves a relatively confined question of statutory construction, but, assuming the Supreme Court does not dismantle the AIA’s post-grant review system in Oil States, SAS Institute has the potential to dramatically change post-grant patent challenges. The statute at issue, 35 U.S.C. 318(a), mandates: “If an inter partes review is instituted . . . , the Patent Trial and Appeal Board shall issue a final written decision with respect to the patentability of any patent claim challenged by the petitioner . . . .” The Patent Office interprets this provision to mean that the PTAB need provide a final written decision on only the claims the PTAB reviews in full. Thus, under current practice, a patent challenger can ask the PTAB to cancel all claims of a patent when filing an IPR petition, but the PTAB may institute full review of only some of the claims. The final written decision is limited to only those claims the PTAB reviews in full. Petitioner in SAS Institute challenges this practice, arguing that the plain text of the statute, along with the statutory text and purpose, requires a decision on all challenged claims. The case has important implications about the AIA process, the degree to which AIA review of patents creates finality to patent validity determinations, and the applicability of Chevron deference to the Patent Office’s rules and procedures.Featuring:Mr. Matthew J. Dowd, Founder, Dowd PLLCMr. Brian H. Pandya, Partner, Wiley Rein Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

In 2011, Congress created a new administrative tribunal in the U.S. Patent Office with the power to cancel previously granted patents, called the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB). The PTAB has become a flashpoint of controversy. Some companies and organizations defend it as an important tool for eliminating invalidly issued patents. Critics have highlighted a wide range of concerns, including, among others, not providing patent-owners with basic due process protections and a structural bias against patents that has led to inordinately high “kill" rates. In Oil States v. Greene's Energy Group, the Supreme Court will decide whether assigning such power to an administrative agency is consistent with the constitutional requirements of Article III, the Seventh Amendment, and the nature of patents as property rights. At the intersection of patent law, administrative law, and constitutional law, Oil States is a blockbuster case in the October 2017 term that will impact the governmental branches, the law and the innovation economy.Prof. Gregory Dolin, Co-director of the Center for Medicine and Law, University of Baltimore School of LawProf. John F. Duffy, Samuel H. McCoy II Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of LawProf. Arti K. Rai, Elvin R. Latty Professor of Law, Duke University School of LawMr. Robert Greene Sterne, Director, Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox PLLCModerator: Hon. F. Scott Kieff, Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School, and former Commissioner, United States International Trade Commission

In 2011, Congress created a new administrative tribunal in the U.S. Patent Office with the power to cancel previously granted patents, called the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB). The PTAB has become a flashpoint of controversy. Some companies and organizations defend it as an important tool for eliminating invalidly issued patents. Critics have highlighted a wide range of concerns, including, among others, not providing patent-owners with basic due process protections and a structural bias against patents that has led to inordinately high “kill" rates. In Oil States v. Greene's Energy Group, the Supreme Court will decide whether assigning such power to an administrative agency is consistent with the constitutional requirements of Article III, the Seventh Amendment, and the nature of patents as property rights. At the intersection of patent law, administrative law, and constitutional law, Oil States is a blockbuster case in the October 2017 term that will impact the governmental branches, the law and the innovation economy.Prof. Gregory Dolin, Co-director of the Center for Medicine and Law, University of Baltimore School of LawProf. John F. Duffy, Samuel H. McCoy II Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of LawProf. Arti K. Rai, Elvin R. Latty Professor of Law, Duke University School of LawMr. Robert Greene Sterne, Director, Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox PLLCModerator: Hon. F. Scott Kieff, Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School, and former Commissioner, United States International Trade Commission

Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC will be argued in the Supreme Court on November 27. While the case originated from a patent infringement suit over hydraulic fracking technique, it has made it to the Supreme Court for Oil States’ challenge of the practice of inter partes review by the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Inter partes review is a process in which a patent conflict is brought before the PTAB so that one party can argue for the invalidation of the other party’s patent. Oil States argues that patents are property and this procedure violates the constitutional property rights of patent owners to a jury and an Article III trial.Featuring:Prof. Richard A. Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law; Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University School of LawJohn Thorne, Partner, Kellogg, Hansen Todd, Figel & Frederick, P.L.L.C. Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC will be argued in the Supreme Court on November 27. While the case originated from a patent infringement suit over hydraulic fracking technique, it has made it to the Supreme Court for Oil States’ challenge of the practice of inter partes review by the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Inter partes review is a process in which a patent conflict is brought before the PTAB so that one party can argue for the invalidation of the other party’s patent. Oil States argues that patents are property and this procedure violates the constitutional property rights of patent owners to a jury and an Article III trial.Featuring:Prof. Richard A. Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law; Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University School of LawJohn Thorne, Partner, Kellogg, Hansen Todd, Figel & Frederick, P.L.L.C. Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

David Pridham and Brad Sheafe explore new revelations at the PTAB that continue to show the odds against the individual inventor remain stacked against them. They speculate about the outcome of Oil States before the Supreme Court (#SCOTUS) challenging the constitutionality of the non-Article III body and how it has chosen to operate. The good news is we have seen a trickle of Federal cases now overturn negative PTAB rulings – so there is hope. The PTAB admitting on the record that it, in fact, stacked the judges to insure a favorable outcome for itself. The judges of the PTAB recently named out of private practice are now sitting before former clients’ cases at the PTAB. The PTAB’s cavalier interpretation of patent law and precedent.

    IP Frequently – where, while always fair, nothing is off limits. We invite you to join the conversation. David Pridham and Brad Sheafe explore new revelations at the PTAB that continue to show the odds against the individual inventor remain stacked against them. They speculate about the outcome of Oil States before the […]

This episode of Fish Post-Grant Radio features Fish Principals John Dragseth & Rob Courtney. In this interview, they take a closer look at the Oil States v. Greene’s Energy Group case that was recently granted cert by the Supreme Court of the United States and whether inter partes review proceedings are constitutional.

This week we turn to the Persian Gulf and talk oil. We take Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates up to 1979, looking at their independence and how they became the oil states. We also look at the Global financial crisis of the 1970s, Saudi Arabia and the rise of Qaddafi.

From 'Fiscal Apocalypse' To 'Meh': Oil States Respond To Price Slide by Inside Energy