DCT
2:18-cv-05932
Cajun Services Unltd LLC v. Benton Energy Service Co
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Cajun Services Unlimited, LLC dba Spoked Manufacturing, T2 Tools & Design, L.L.C., Shane Triche, and Heath Triche (Louisiana)
- Defendant: Benton Energy Service Company dba Besco Tubular (Louisiana)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Keogh, Cox & Wilson, Ltd.; Scott Law Group LLP
- Case Identification: Cajun Services Unlimited, LLC v. Benton Energy Service Company, 2:18-cv-05932, E.D. La., 06/14/2018
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as the Defendant is a Louisiana corporation that resides, transacts business, and has a regular and established place of business in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendant reverse-engineered Plaintiffs' patented "Elevator Roller Insert System" and now manufactures and sells knock-off versions that infringe U.S. Patent No. 9,988,862.
- Technical Context: The technology relates to mechanical inserts for elevators used on oil and gas rigs, which allow heavy pipe segments (tubulars) to rotate freely during connection, reducing friction and preventing costly thread damage.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint details a prior lawsuit ("First Litigation") filed by Plaintiffs against Defendant for trade secret misappropriation concerning the same technology, which was administratively closed. The complaint also notes that Defendant filed a declaratory judgment action for non-infringement and invalidity of the patent-in-suit one day before it was issued.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2014-09-30 | Alleged conception of the ERIS invention by Plaintiffs (end of Sept. 2014) |
| 2015-03-23 | Priority Date: U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/136,978 filed |
| 2015-05-07 | Defendant begins renting the ERIS tool from Plaintiffs |
| 2016-03-02 | Period begins during which Defendant allegedly had knock-off products manufactured |
| 2016-07-31 | Defendant ceases renting the ERIS tool from Plaintiffs (July 2016) |
| 2017-01-20 | Plaintiffs file "First Litigation" against Defendant for trade secret misappropriation |
| 2018-06-05 | U.S. Patent No. 9,988,862 issues |
| 2018-06-14 | Complaint for patent infringement filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,988,862 - "Elevator Roller Insert System"
Issued June 5, 2018.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: In oil and gas drilling, connecting heavy tubular pipe segments is challenging. If the threads are not perfectly aligned when rotated by power tongs, they can be galled or crushed. Furthermore, the immense weight of the tubular can create friction with the elevator holding it, causing the connection to "stick" and preventing rotation, which risks damaging the equipment or dropping the pipe. (’862 Patent, col. 1:16-28, col. 2:28-38).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a tool that inserts into a standard pipe elevator. This insert contains multiple sets of rollers that bear the tubular's weight while allowing it to spin with very little torque. This arrangement lets operators start the connection by hand to ensure proper thread alignment before using power tongs and prevents the pipe from sticking due to its own weight. (’862 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:45-54).
- Technical Importance: The technology is presented as a solution that significantly reduces the risk of damaged connections and equipment failure, thereby saving time and money on drilling rigs. (’862 Patent, col. 2:62-65).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claims 1, 9, and 19, with a focus on Claim 9, which is quoted in full. (Compl. ¶¶ 71, 75).
- Independent Claim 9 recites:
- An elevator roller insert with an interior and exterior surface, where the exterior is configured to interconnect with an elevator.
- A plurality of "first rollers" on the interior surface that are "freely rotatable."
- A plurality of "second rollers" on the interior surface that are also "freely rotatable."
- The rollers are configured to contact a tubular to create a clearance space and "facilitate free rotation of the tubular relative to the elevator while supporting the weight of the tubular."
- The complaint notes that its assertions are "without limitation as to the claims to be asserted in this action." (Compl. ¶71).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- Defendant’s "knock-off ERIS tools," referred to as the "Accused Products." (Compl. ¶¶ 6, 55).
Functionality and Market Context
- The Accused Products are alleged to be "elevator roller inserts" that contain "a plurality of first and second rollers, e.g. upper and lower rollers, that are disposed about the interior surface of the inserts and are each freely rotatable." (Compl. ¶75). Their function is described as facilitating the "free rotation of the tubular relative to the elevator while supporting the weight of the tubular." (Compl. ¶75). The complaint includes a photograph from Defendant's website showing the Accused Product being offered as part of its "BATS system." (Compl. p. 26). The complaint alleges these products are used on offshore wells for major operators and generate "significant revenue" for the Defendant. (Compl. ¶6).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’862 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 9) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| an insert having an interior surface and an exterior surface, wherein the interior surface forms an aperture with a central axis, and wherein the exterior surface of the insert is configured to selectively interconnect to an interior surface of an elevator; | The Accused Products are described as "elevator roller inserts, the interior surface of which form an aperture about a central axis, the exterior surface of which interconnect to the interior surface of a pipe elevator." | ¶75 | col. 9:20-24 |
| a plurality of first rollers disposed on the interior surface of the insert and positioned about the central axis, wherein the plurality of first rollers forms an inner diameter, and the rollers in the plurality of first rollers are freely rotatable; | "The Accused Products have a plurality of first and second rollers, e.g. upper and lower rollers, that are disposed about the interior surface of the inserts and are each freely rotatable." | ¶75 | col. 9:25-29 |
| a plurality of second rollers disposed on the interior surface of the insert and positioned about the central axis, wherein the plurality of second rollers forms an inner diameter, and the rollers in the plurality of second rollers are freely rotatable; | "The Accused Products have a plurality of first and second rollers, e.g. upper and lower rollers, that are disposed about the interior surface of the inserts and are each freely rotatable." | ¶75 | col. 9:30-34 |
| wherein the pluralities of first and second rollers are configured to contact a body of a tubular... to define a clearance space... and the pluralities of first and second rollers facilitate free rotation of the tubular relative to the elevator while supporting the weight of the tubular. | The inserts are allegedly "designed such that... the rollers contact the outer surface of the tubular such that space exists between the tubular and the interior surface of the insert to facilitate free rotation of the tubular relative to the elevator while supporting the weight of the tubular." | ¶75 | col. 9:35-42 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- The complaint provides a side-by-side photographic comparison of the Plaintiff's ERIS tool and the Defendant's Accused Products, alleging they are "substantially identical." (Compl. p. 23).
- Scope Questions: The complaint’s allegations for the Accused Product track the language of Claim 9 very closely. This suggests that the primary dispute may not be over the meaning of the claim terms, but rather over the underlying facts of copying and inventorship.
- Technical Questions: A key technical question will be whether the "Accused Products" function in the exact manner claimed. For instance, what evidence demonstrates that the rollers are "freely rotatable" in the manner contemplated by the patent, and what is the specific configuration of the "first" and "second" sets of rollers in the accused device compared to the patent’s teachings?
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "freely rotatable"
Context and Importance: This term is at the heart of the invention's function. The degree of "freeness" required for infringement could become a point of contention. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition—whether it implies a specific low-friction threshold or a particular mechanical construction—will determine if the accused device's performance falls within the claim scope.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the functional outcome of allowing tubulars to "rotate rather freely" and enabling an operator to start connections by hand with a strap wrench, which may support a broader, functional definition not tied to a specific quantitative measurement. (’862 Patent, col. 5:8-9; col. 2:47-49).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses specific embodiments with "a combination of axial and thrust bearings" (’862 Patent, col. 4:65-67), which a party could argue limits the term to rollers containing such specific, high-performance components.
The Term: "configured to selectively interconnect"
Context and Importance: This term describes how the patented insert attaches to a standard elevator. The dispute could center on whether the connection method of the Accused Product meets this limitation.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification mentions the connection may "match that of the elevator that the inserts will be used in," suggesting the term is broad enough to cover various known connection types. (’862 Patent, col. 5:31-33).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The term "selectively" may suggest a non-permanent, removable connection. A party could argue that a permanently integrated or welded set of rollers in an elevator body does not "selectively interconnect."
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement by claiming Defendant actively instructs and encourages its customers to use the Accused Products in an infringing manner. (Compl. ¶¶ 76, 82). It alleges contributory infringement by asserting the Accused Products are especially made for infringement and are not staple articles of commerce. (Compl. ¶¶ 76, 83).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges a strong basis for willfulness based on extensive pre-suit knowledge. The facts alleged include that Defendant: (1) was told about the patent application in March 2015; (2) rented the physical tool, which was marked "Patent Pending"; (3) received a license proposal; (4) was provided patent application details during prior litigation; and (5) monitored the patent prosecution, as evidenced by filing a declaratory judgment suit the day before the patent issued. (Compl. ¶¶ 77-78).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The complaint frames this dispute less as a nuanced technical disagreement and more as a straightforward case of copying. The key questions for the court will likely be:
A central factual question will be one of evidentiary proof: given the allegations of direct copying, can Plaintiffs demonstrate through inspection that the Accused Products embody every element of the asserted claims? The side-by-side photographs suggest a high degree of visual similarity, but a detailed technical breakdown will be determinative.
A core issue will likely be inventorship and validity: the complaint’s extensive narrative on the product’s conception and the parties' history suggests Defendant may challenge the patent by asserting its own employee was an inventor or co-inventor. This would shift the focus from a simple infringement analysis to a dispute over who rightfully owns the invention.
The outcome of the damages analysis may turn on willfulness: do the extensive allegations of Defendant's pre-suit knowledge of the pending patent—from renting the marked product to monitoring its prosecution—constitute the type of egregious conduct required to justify enhanced damages?