Crusoe Fires Back at Upstream in Patent Dispute Over Gas-Powered Cryptocurrency Mining
On Tuesday, July 16, 2024, Crusoe Energy filed a reply to Upstream Data’s arguments in their ongoing patent infringement dispute at the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The case concerns Patent No. 11,574,372, which Upstream Data claims covers their technology for powering blockchain cryptocurrency mining operations using natural gas from oil and gas production sites.
In its reply, Crusoe Energy argued that Upstream Data’s interpretation of several key claim terms in the patent was too narrow and not supported by the claim language or specification. Specifically, Crusoe took issue with Upstream’s position that the claimed “blockchain mining devices” must include specific additional components beyond just a “mining processor.” Crusoe pointed out the claims only require the mining devices to contain a mining processor.
Regarding the “mining processor” term, Crusoe disagreed with Upstream’s view that it must include specialized blockchain mining circuitry or meet certain processor speed or power requirements, noting those features are not mentioned in the claims or specification. Crusoe contended a generic computer CPU could satisfy the term.
For the “continuous flow of combustible gas” limitation, Crusoe argued that Upstream failed to clearly define what “continuous” means and that Upstream’s implicit definition of limiting it to gas produced as a byproduct was not supported. The specification and claims cover both byproduct gas from oil wells and gas from dedicated gas wells, according to Crusoe.
Crusoe also maintained that a person of ordinary skill in art would have been motivated to combine the gas generator system disclosed in the Dickerson reference with the cryptocurrency mining facility described in the CryptoKube reference. According to Crusoe, both gas generators and blockchain mining data centers were well-known, and in search of cheap electricity, a POSITA naturally would have considered using cheap gas-generated power for mining.
Crusoe disputed Upstream’s arguments that such a combination relies on hindsight and that gas generators do not provide reliable energy. Crusoe cited evidence that people had proposed such a combination before the patent’s priority date, and pointed out gas generators can be made reliable with measures like backup power sources.
Regarding the obviousness of the load control claims, Crusoe argued modifying CryptoKube’s programmable control system to adjust the mining load based on available gas supply would have been within the skill level of a POSITA, especially since CryptoKube was designed to be highly customizable.
Crusoe concluded by asserting Upstream failed to establish the required nexus between the claimed invention and Upstream’s alleged evidence of secondary considerations like commercial success, long-felt need, industry skepticism, and praise. According to Crusoe, the claims cover much more than just Upstream’s actual products, and the commendations could be attributed to other non-claimed features.
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has not yet issued a decision on whether the claims of the ‘372 patent are invalid. The arguments presented in this latest reply will be considered alongside Upstream’s opposition in making a final determination.
Please contact BlockTribune for access to a copy of this filing.
