DCT
1:16-cv-02275
Frac Shack Inc v. Atlas Oil Co
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Frac Shack Inc. (Canada)
- Defendant: Atlas Oil Company (Michigan) and Atlas Energy Services, LLC (Colorado)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Goldstein Law, PLLC; Fischman Law PLLC
- Case Identification: 1:16-cv-02275, D. Colo., 09/09/2016
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Colorado because Defendant Atlas Energy Services, LLC has a permanent place of business in the state, both defendants regularly conduct business there, and the defendants have allegedly committed acts of infringement in the state.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ automated fueling system, used at hydraulic fracturing sites, infringes a patent related to automated fuel delivery systems that prevent equipment from running out of fuel.
- Technical Context: The technology relates to automated, multi-vehicle refueling systems designed to improve safety and efficiency in large-scale industrial operations, such as oil and gas extraction, where continuous equipment operation is critical.
- Key Procedural History: Plaintiff Frac Shack Inc. alleges it is the assignee of the patent-in-suit. The complaint also states that Plaintiff’s own commercial product, the "Frac Shack," is marked with the patent number pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 287.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2010-02-17 | U.S. Patent No. 9,346,662 Priority Date |
| 2016-05-24 | U.S. Patent No. 9,346,662 Issues |
| 2016-09-09 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,346,662 - "Fuel Delivery System and Method"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: At large hydraulic fracturing job sites, multiple pieces of equipment require frequent refueling. Manually refueling each piece of equipment one-by-one is inefficient and creates a significant risk that a piece of equipment will run out of fuel during a critical operation, which could damage the well. This process also presents safety hazards, including fire risk from fuel vapors and extreme operating conditions. (’662 Patent, col. 1:7-22).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a centralized and automated fuel delivery system designed to simultaneously service multiple pieces of equipment. It uses a primary fuel source connected to a manifold with multiple outlets. Each outlet has a hose that connects to a piece of equipment via a specialized fuel cap. A sensor on each fuel cap monitors the fuel level, and when it detects a low level, it signals a central controller to automatically open an electrically-operated valve, initiating refueling for that specific piece of equipment. (’662 Patent, col. 2:25-52, FIG. 1).
- Technical Importance: The system aims to eliminate the need for manual "hot-refueling" during operations, thereby reducing the likelihood of operational shutdowns due to fuel depletion and mitigating associated safety and environmental risks. (’662 Patent, col. 1:16-22).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 7.
- Independent Claim 1 recites a fuel delivery system comprising:
- A fuel source with one or more manifolds, each having multiple fuel outlets and a hose connection.
- Plural hoses connected to the outlets and having a fuel delivery connection for equipment.
- An electrically operable valve on each fuel outlet responsive to electronic control signals.
- A sensor associated with each hose/connection combination, configured to detect a low fuel condition in the equipment.
- A controller responsive to signals from the sensors, configured to open and close the valves.
- The controller is responsive to the low fuel condition to either display an indication of the low fuel condition or to open the corresponding valve.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims, including dependent claims 2-4 and 8-12. (Compl. ¶13, 14, 16).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "Atlas Fuel Automation Station". (Compl. ¶12).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the accused product as a "modular plug and play fuel delivery system" used to deliver fuel to multiple pieces of equipment at a hydraulic fracturing work site. (Compl. ¶15a).
- Its alleged technical functionality includes a fuel source with two manifolds, multiple fuel outlets each with an electrically operable valve, and twenty hoses. (Compl. ¶15b-d). Each hose combination is allegedly associated with a "guided wave radar technology level sensor" that monitors the fuel level in an equipment tank. (Compl. ¶15f). An "Inside Command Center" includes a control system that allegedly automatically directs the valves to open and start filling when a low fuel level is detected and to close when the tank is full. (Compl. ¶15e, 15g). The system also allegedly provides a real-time graphic display showing fuel levels, including the "low level" at which filling will commence. (Compl. ¶15h).
- No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’662 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A fuel delivery system...comprising: a fuel source comprising one or more manifolds, the one or more manifolds being connectable to a fuel supply; | The Atlas Fuel Automation Station "includes a fuel source with two manifolds connectable to a fuel supply." | ¶15b | col. 8:51-54 |
| each manifold of the one or more manifolds having multiple fuel outlets, each fuel outlet of the multiple fuel outlets having a hose connection; | "Each of the manifolds of the Atlas Fuel Automation Station has multiple fuel outlets, each fuel outlet has...a hose connection." | ¶15c | col. 8:55-58 |
| plural hoses, each hose having a first end and a second end and being connected at the first end...to a corresponding one of the multiple fuel outlets and having a fuel delivery connection... | The accused product "includes twenty hoses, each of which...has a first end which is connected to one of the multiple fuel outlets" and a second end with a "cap-type fuel delivery connection." | ¶15d | col. 8:59-65 |
| an electrically operable valve responsive to electronic control signals on each fuel outlet; | The accused product has an "electrically operable valve" on each fuel outlet, and the control system directs the "electrically controlled valve" to open or close. | ¶15c, 15g | col. 8:66-68 |
| a sensor associated with each combination of fuel outlet, hose and fuel delivery connection, each sensor being configured to detect a low fuel condition... | "Each combination of fuel outlet, hose and fuel delivery connection has associated with it a guided wave radar technology level sensor which is configured to provide real time monitoring." | ¶15f | col. 9:1-5 |
| a controller responsive to signals supplied from each sensor...the controller being configured to provide control signals to open and close the respective electrically operable valves; and | The accused product has an "Inside Command Center which includes a control system that...automatically controls the flow of fuel" by directing the valves to open or close. | ¶15e, 15g | col. 9:6-10 |
| in which the controller is responsive to the detection of the low fuel condition, to display an indication of the low fuel condition or to open at least one of the electrically operable valves... | The control system acts when the fuel level is "low," and the system's graphic display "depicts the 'low level,' at which the control system will Start Filling the fuel tank." | ¶15g, 15h | col. 9:11-16 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The complaint's allegations map very closely to the language of claim 1. A potential dispute may arise over whether the accused "Inside Command Center" and its associated software meet the specific functional requirements of the claimed "controller." The construction of "controller" will be central.
- Technical Questions: A key question for discovery will be whether the accused system's components function precisely as alleged. For example, does the "guided wave radar technology level sensor" (Compl. ¶15f) operate in a way that meets the limitation of a "sensor...configured to detect a low fuel condition" as understood in the context of the patent, which discloses float sensors and pressure transducers (’662 Patent, col. 4:38-40).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "controller"
Context and Importance: This term is the "brain" of the automated system. Its construction will determine what level of functionality and what specific components are required to infringe. The dispute will likely center on whether the accused "Inside Command Center" (Compl. ¶15e) performs the functions required by the claims and specification.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes the controller responding to sensor signals to "start fuel flow" and "stop fuel flow" (’662 Patent, col. 4:46-48), and notes it can comprise a "conventional computer, input device (keyboard) and display or displays" or a "valve control console with individual toggles for remote operation" (’662 Patent, col. 4:58-63). This suggests the term is not limited to a single hardware implementation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a specific embodiment where the "control station 56 comprises a transceiver that is compatible with the transceiver at the sensor 54, such as an Accutech™ base radio" (’662 Patent, col. 4:53-56). A defendant may argue this embodiment limits the scope of "controller" to systems with similar wireless communication capabilities or components.
The Term: "sensor...configured to detect a low fuel condition"
Context and Importance: The sensor is the trigger for the entire automated refueling process. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the accused "guided wave radar technology level sensor" (Compl. ¶15f) is encompassed by this term.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language is functional, requiring only that the sensor be "configured to detect a low fuel condition." The specification states the sensor "may be any suitable sensor" before listing examples. (’662 Patent, col. 4:38). This may support a construction that covers any sensor capable of performing the stated function, regardless of its specific operating principle.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific examples of sensors, including "a float sensor, vibrating level switch or pressure transducer" and a specific commercial product, the "Accutech FL10™ Wireless Float Level Field Unit." (’662 Patent, col. 4:38-42). A defendant may argue that these examples limit the term to the types of sensor technologies disclosed, potentially excluding the accused radar-based sensor.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain specific allegations of indirect infringement (inducement or contributory infringement).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on "information and belief" that Defendant "has been aware of the '662 Patent." (Compl. ¶11, 18). The complaint does not provide specific facts regarding when or how Defendant allegedly became aware of the patent.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The litigation appears to center on a direct comparison between the elements of the patented system and the features of the accused product, as the complaint alleges a very close functional correspondence. The key questions will likely be:
A central issue will be one of claim construction: How broadly will the court define the terms "controller" and "sensor"? The patent’s disclosure of both general functions and specific commercial embodiments provides grounds for dispute over the scope of these critical terms.
A key evidentiary question will be one of technical fidelity: Will discovery confirm that the accused "Atlas Fuel Automation Station" functions precisely as alleged in the complaint? The case may turn on whether subtle differences in the operation of the accused product's "Inside Command Center" or "guided wave radar" sensor place it outside the legally-construed boundaries of the patent claims.