DCT
5:22-cv-01013
Fuel Automation Station LLC v. Petro Rigs Co
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Fuel Automation Station, LLC (Michigan)
- Defendant: Petro Rigs Company (Oklahoma)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ball | Morse | Lowe; Carlson, Gaskey & Olds, PC
- Case Identification: 5:22-cv-01013, W.D. Okla., 11/28/2022
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Western District of Oklahoma because the Defendant is incorporated, organized, and maintains its principal place of business in Oklahoma.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Frac Fuel Trailers, which are mobile automated fueling systems, infringe three patents related to technology for dispensing fluid to multiple pieces of equipment simultaneously.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses the need for "hot-refueling" in industrial settings like hydraulic fracturing (fracking), allowing equipment to be refueled while operating to increase efficiency and reduce costly downtime.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint states that Plaintiff sent a demand letter to Defendant on September 7, 2022, identifying the Asserted Patents and providing claim charts. This allegation establishes a date of alleged pre-suit knowledge, which is a predicate for the willfulness claim.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2016-10-11 | Earliest Priority Date for '805, '118, and '955 Patents |
| 2017-03-07 | Issue Date, U.S. Patent No. 9,586,805 |
| 2020-10-27 | Issue Date, U.S. Patent No. 10,815,118 |
| 2021-04-13 | Issue Date, U.S. Patent No. 10,974,955 |
| 2022-09-07 | Plaintiff sends demand letter to Defendant |
| 2022-11-28 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,815,118 - "Mobile Distribution Station Having Sensor Communication Lines Routed With Hoses"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the inefficiency and cost associated with shutting down industrial equipment, such as that used in hydraulic fracturing, for refueling (’118 Patent, col. 1:13-24). The patent notes that "hot-refueling" (refueling while equipment is running) can be difficult to sustain reliably over long operations (’118 Patent, col. 1:21-24).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a mobile, automated fueling trailer designed for hot-refueling. It comprises a system of pumps, manifolds, hoses on reels, and valves (’118 Patent, Fig. 2). The system’s core is a controller that receives signals from fluid level sensors attached to the equipment being fueled and automatically opens or closes valves to start or stop refueling based on pre-set fluid level thresholds (’118 Patent, col. 4:21-45). This automates the process of maintaining fuel levels in multiple pieces of equipment simultaneously.
- Technical Importance: This automated approach aimed to make hot-refueling safer and more reliable, reducing the need for manual monitoring and minimizing the risk of spills or equipment shutdowns in hazardous industrial environments (’118 Patent, col. 1:17-21).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶50).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- a mobile trailer;
- a pump on the trailer;
- a manifold connected to the pump;
- a plurality of reels, flow passages, and hoses;
- a plurality of valves situated between the manifold and the reels to control fluid flow;
- a plurality of fluid level sensors connectable with the hoses; and
- a controller configured to operate the valves responsive to fluid level thresholds.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
U.S. Patent No. 10,974,955 - "Mobile Distribution Station For Fluid Dispensing"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Similar to the ’118 Patent, this patent addresses the operational inefficiencies caused by equipment shutdowns for refueling during hydraulic fracturing operations (’955 Patent, col. 1:19-30).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a fluid distribution station housed within a "container" that features a pump connected to first and second manifolds. These two separate manifolds feed distinct portions of the hose reels, allowing for a specific dual-sided distribution architecture (’955 Patent, Abstract). As with the related patents, a controller individually opens and closes valves based on signals from fluid level sensors to manage the refueling process (’955 Patent, col. 4:55-58).
- Technical Importance: The dual-manifold system provides a specific physical layout that can support high-volume, simultaneous refueling of numerous pieces of equipment from a single mobile unit (’955 Patent, col. 2:64-col. 3:6).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶53).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- a container with opposed side and end walls;
- a pump in the container;
- first and second manifolds connected to the pump;
- a plurality of reels, with a portion fed from the first manifold and another portion fed from the second;
- a plurality of hoses and valves;
- a plurality of fluid level sensors; and
- a controller configured to individually open and close the valves responsive to the fluid level sensors.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
U.S. Patent No. 9,586,805 - "Mobile Distribution Station With Aisle Walkway"
Technology Synopsis
The patent describes a mobile fueling station designed to solve the hot-refueling problem common in fracking. Its distinguishing feature is a specific physical arrangement where hose reels are mounted on first and second opposed sides within the mobile trailer, creating an "aisle walkway" down the middle (’805 Patent, Abstract). This configuration is intended to improve operator access and safety within the trailer during fueling operations (’805 Patent, col. 3:50-58).
Asserted Claims
The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶56).
Accused Features
The complaint alleges that the accused Frac Fuel Trailer has reels arranged on first and second opposed sides with an aisle walkway down the middle of the trailer (Compl. ¶15).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused products are "Frac Fuel Trailers" that Defendant Petro Rigs sells, offers for sale, and/or custom-builds (Compl. ¶¶11, 22).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the Frac Fuel Trailers are automated fuel delivery systems for industrial applications like fracking jobs (Compl. ¶27). Based on Defendant's website, the trailers are described as "Custom Manufactured Fuel-Delivery and Management Systems" that are "Fully Self-Contained, Wireless Fuel Monitoring," and feature a "Control Room with Touch Screen Monitoring Station" (Compl. ¶26).
- The system is allegedly capable of automatically fueling up to 24 or 36 frac pumps simultaneously (Compl. ¶¶24, 28). The complaint further alleges the system can be monitored and controlled remotely via desktop, tablet, or smart phone (Compl. ¶25).
- The complaint references a social media post showing a Frac Fuel Trailer built by Petro Rigs that was sold and destined for North Dakota, suggesting commercial activity (Compl. ¶12).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint references an exemplary claim chart (Ex. 3) that was not publicly filed with the complaint. The analysis below is based on the narrative infringement allegations contained within the body of the complaint.
10,815,118 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a mobile trailer; | The Frac Fuel Trailer includes a mobile trailer. | ¶13 | col. 2:11-13 |
| a pump on the mobile trailer; | The Frac Fuel Trailer includes a pump on the mobile trailer. | ¶13 | col. 2:25-26 |
| a manifold on the mobile trailer and connected with the pump; | The Frac Fuel Trailer includes a manifold on the mobile trailer connected with the pump. | ¶13 | col. 2:38-40 |
| a plurality of reels on the mobile trailer; | The Frac Fuel Trailer includes a plurality of reels on the mobile trailer. | ¶13 | col. 2:45-48 |
| a plurality of flow passages, each said flow passage being connected to the manifold and running through a respective one of the reels; | The Frac Fuel Trailer includes a plurality of flow passages, each connected to the manifold and running through a respective reel. | ¶13 | col. 2:64-67 |
| a plurality of hoses, each said hose being connected with a respective one of the flow passages via a respective one of the reels; | The Frac Fuel Trailer includes a plurality of hoses, each connected with a flow passage via a reel. | ¶13 | col. 2:45-48 |
| a plurality of valves on the mobile trailer, each said valve situated between the manifold and a respective different one of the reels...; | The Frac Fuel Trailer includes a plurality of valves on the mobile trailer, each situated between the manifold and a respective reel to control fluid flow. | ¶13 | col. 3:1-3 |
| a plurality of fluid level sensors, each said fluid level sensor being connected or connectable with a respective different one of the hoses; and | The Frac Fuel Trailer includes a plurality of fluid level sensors, each connected or connectable with a respective hose. | ¶13 | col. 3:20-24 |
| a controller configured to operate the valves responsive to fluid level thresholds to control fluid flow to the hoses. | The Frac Fuel Trailer includes a controller configured to operate the valves responsive to fluid level thresholds to control fluid flow to the hoses. | ¶13 | col. 3:42-45 |
10,974,955 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a container including first and second opposed side walls that join first and second opposed end walls; | The Frac Fuel Trailer includes a container with first and second opposed side walls joining first and second opposed end walls. | ¶14 | col. 2:25-28 |
| a pump in the container; | The Frac Fuel Trailer includes a pump in the container. | ¶14 | col. 2:50-51 |
| first and second manifolds in the container and fluidly connected with the pump; | The Frac Fuel Trailer includes first and second manifolds in the container that are fluidly connected with the pump. | ¶14 | col. 2:64-65 |
| a plurality of reels in the container; | The Frac Fuel Trailer includes a plurality of reels in the container. | ¶14 | col. 3:1-3 |
| a plurality of hoses...wherein a portion of the reels are connected to be fed from the first manifold and another portion of the reels are connected to be fed from the second manifold; | The Frac Fuel Trailer includes a plurality of hoses, where a portion of the reels are connected to be fed from the first manifold and another portion of the reels are connected to be fed from the second manifold. | ¶14 | col. 3:46-49 |
| a plurality of valves in the container, each said valve situated between one of the first or second manifolds and a respective different one of the reels; | The Frac Fuel Trailer includes a plurality of valves, each situated between one of the first or second manifolds and a respective reel. | ¶14 | col. 3:46-49 |
| a plurality of fluid level sensors, each said fluid level sensor being associated with a different one of the hoses; and | The Frac Fuel Trailer includes a plurality of fluid level sensors, each associated with a different hose. | ¶14 | col. 4:32-34 |
| a controller configured to individually open and close the valves responsive to the fluid level sensors. | The Frac Fuel Trailer includes a controller configured to individually open and close the valves responsive to the fluid level sensors. | ¶14 | col. 4:55-58 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Technical Questions: The complaint's allegations track the claim language closely. A central question will be one of evidentiary proof: what evidence demonstrates that the accused "controller" actually operates "responsive to fluid level thresholds" as claimed, rather than, for example, on a timer, based on operator input, or using another non-infringing logic? The complaint alleges the accused trailers are "custom-built," which may create factual disputes over the precise functionality of any given unit (Compl. ¶22).
- Scope Questions: The infringement analysis may turn on whether the accused product's plumbing architecture meets the specific "first and second manifolds" limitation of the ’955 Patent. A defendant could argue its system uses a single, albeit branched, manifold, raising a question of claim scope. Similarly, for the '805 Patent, the definition of an "aisle walkway" and its specific dimensions and characteristics as described in the patent may be a point of dispute.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
"controller configured to operate the valves responsive to fluid level thresholds" (’118 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term is the functional heart of the claimed invention, defining the system's automation. Infringement hinges on whether the accused controller's decision-making logic matches this claimed functionality. Practitioners may focus on this term because the defendant's marketing materials describe "Full-Auto" operation and a "Touch Screen Monitoring Station," but the actual operating logic is not detailed in the complaint (Compl. ¶¶25, 26).
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the controller generally as including "software, hardware, or both that is configured to carry out any of the functions described herein," which could support a construction that is not limited to a specific algorithm (’118 Patent, col. 4:22-24).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a specific operational example where the controller acts in response to a fuel level falling below a "lower threshold" and reaching an "upper threshold" (’118 Patent, col. 4:39-45, 4:61-64). A defendant may argue this specific two-threshold logic is required by the claim.
"first and second manifolds" (’955 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term defines a key structural difference of the ’955 Patent compared to systems with a single manifold. The infringement case for this patent depends on whether the accused trailer's plumbing system can be characterized as having two distinct manifolds that feed separate reel portions.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language requires two manifolds but does not specify their physical separation or independence beyond being connected to the pump and feeding different reels.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes an embodiment where the two manifolds are "arranged on opposed sides of the compartment 24" (’955 Patent, col. 2:64-65; Fig. 2). A party could argue that this spatial separation into two distinct physical structures is a defining characteristic of the invention, and that a single, bifurcated pipe would not meet the limitation.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Petro Rigs indirectly infringes by "actively inducing manufacturers to infringe" the asserted patents (Compl. ¶¶ 59, 61, 63). The factual basis for this appears to be allegations that Petro Rigs "makes and/or instructs others to make" the trailers and also acts as an exclusive "Sellers Agent" for manufacturers, handling the entire sales process (Compl. ¶¶ 31, 35, 36).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant’s continued infringing activities after receiving Plaintiff’s September 7, 2022 letter, which allegedly provided notice of the asserted patents and infringement allegations (Compl. ¶¶ 16, 18, 38).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This case presents several key questions for the court that will likely determine its outcome:
- A central issue will be one of functional operation: Does the accused Frac Fuel Trailer's controller operate with the specific automated logic required by the claims (i.e., "responsive to fluid level thresholds"), or is there a technical mismatch in how the system actually functions? The complaint's conclusory allegations will need to be substantiated with evidence of the accused product's software and hardware configuration.
- A second key question will be structural interpretation: Does the physical architecture of the accused trailer meet the specific structural limitations of the asserted patents? This includes whether its plumbing constitutes the "first and second manifolds" required by the '955 Patent and whether its internal layout includes the "aisle walkway" as claimed in the '805 Patent.
- Finally, a significant factual question concerns the Defendant's role: The complaint alleges Petro Rigs both custom-builds the trailers and acts as a sales agent for other manufacturers. The resolution of this fact will be critical for determining liability, distinguishing between acts of direct infringement (making/selling) and indirect infringement (inducing others).