DCT

2:24-cv-00875

Infocus Downhole Solutions USA LLC v. Full Metal Power BV

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00875, E.D. Tex., 10/01/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper for the foreign defendants in any judicial district. For the Texas-based defendant, venue is alleged to be proper based on sales and offers for sale of the accused products within the district, including sales to Texas companies, attendance at industry conferences in Texas, and operation of an interactive website accessible in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' metal-to-metal downhole power sections infringe a patent related to progressive cavity tools featuring a specific construction, material composition, and manufacturing process.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns power sections for downhole tools used in the oil and gas industry, where mechanical durability and performance in high-temperature, high-stress environments are critical operational factors.
  • Key Procedural History: This filing is a First Amended Complaint. The complaint alleges that Defendants have had knowledge of the patent-in-suit since at least June 15, 2021, a specific allegation that may be central to claims of willful and indirect infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2017-03-22 U.S. Patent No. 10,676,992 Priority Date
2020-06-09 U.S. Patent No. 10,676,992 Issued
2021-03-04 Defendant Wolters presents webinar on Accused Products
2021-06-15 Alleged date of Defendants' knowledge of the '992 Patent
2024-05-06 Defendants attend Offshore Technology Conference in Houston
2024-07-01 Defendants post on LinkedIn about meeting customers in Houston
2025-10-01 First Amended Complaint Filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 10,676,992 - "Downhole Tools with Progressive Cavity Sections, and Related Methods of Use and Assembly"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Traditional downhole tools with progressive cavity sections, which are used to power drilling operations, often rely on a metal rotor turning inside a stator lined with an elastomer. ('992 Patent, col. 10:11-12). Such elastomer components can degrade or fail under the high temperatures and harsh chemical conditions found in deep wellbores, limiting the tool's performance and lifespan.
  • The Patented Solution: The ’992 Patent describes a downhole tool with a metal-on-metal design, where the contacting surfaces of both the stator and rotor are made of metal and are rigid, meaning they do not flex at downhole temperatures. (’992 Patent, col. 3:30-33). To achieve the precise, non-seizing fit required for a metal-on-metal seal, the invention discloses forming the stator from a single, long block of material using Electrochemical Machining (ECM). (’992 Patent, col. 1:34-38; col. 25:61-26:67). The design is intended to create a durable, high-temperature-capable power section.
  • Technical Importance: The move from elastomer-lined to precision-machined, all-metal power sections enables operation in more demanding downhole environments, potentially increasing drilling efficiency and tool reliability. (Compl. ¶32).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least Claim 1 of the ’992 Patent (Compl. ¶¶ 28, 50).
  • The essential elements of independent Claim 1 are:
    • A downhole tool comprising a progressive cavity section with a stator and a rotor;
    • The stator is formed from a single integral block of material and has a length of at least fifty inches;
    • The rotor and stator contacting surfaces are rigid and do not flex at downhole temperatures;
    • The rotor and stator contacting surfaces are made of metal;
    • The stator is formed by electrochemical machining (ECM) to create a sufficiently narrow clearance or negative interference fit with the rotor; and
    • The rotor contacting surfaces of the stator have been heat treated for increased surface hardness.
  • The complaint focuses its narrative infringement allegations exclusively on Claim 1.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • Defendants' "Full Metal Power Section" products, with the "2-7/8" 9:10 Lobe 4.0 Stage Power Section" identified as an exemplary product (Compl. ¶¶ 5, 28).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused product is marketed as a "Metal to metal power section" that has "No rubber, no reline," positioning it for high-durability applications. The product's specification sheet, included in the complaint, shows its material as "34CrAlNi7-10," a type of steel (Compl. p. 7).
  • The complaint alleges the product is designed for high-temperature downhole operations, capable of operating up to 500° Celsius (932° Fahrenheit) (Compl. ¶32). A product datasheet included in the complaint shows specifications for the stator, including a total length of 82.7 inches and a profile length of 74 inches (Compl. p. 7).
  • The product is sold for use in "downhole drilling and production operations" and is allegedly marketed through Defendants' website, direct contacts with U.S. companies, and at industry trade shows (Compl. ¶¶ 5-6).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

Claim Chart Summary

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A downhole tool comprising: a progressive cavity section with a stator and a rotor... The accused Full Metal Lobe 4.0 Stage Power Section is a downhole tool with a progressive cavity section, a stator, and a rotor. An annotated image in the complaint identifies these components (Compl. p. 11). ¶¶29, 52 col. 1:24-25
...in which the stator is formed from a single integral block of material, and the stator has a length of at least fifty inches defined between axial ends of the stator... The accused product is described as a "seamless metal-to-metal power section," which the complaint alleges meets the "single integral block" limitation. The product's stator is alleged to have a total length of 82.7 inches, exceeding the fifty-inch requirement (Compl. p. 7). ¶¶30-31, 53-54 col. 1:35-38
...in which rotor contacting surfaces of the stator, and stator contacting surfaces of the rotor, are rigid and do not flex when in use at downhole temperatures... The complaint alleges on information and belief that the metal contacting surfaces are rigid and do not flex, supported by the product's advertised high operating temperature of up to 500°C. ¶¶33, 55 col. 3:30-33
...in which the stator contacting surfaces and the rotor contacting surfaces are made of metal... The accused product is marketed as a "metal to metal power section" with "No rubber, no reline," and its specification sheet identifies the material as steel (Compl. p. 7). ¶¶32, 56 col. 4:62-63
...in which the stator is formed by electrochemical machining (ECM) to structure the rotor contacting surfaces of the stator to achieve a sufficiently narrow clearance or negative interference fit... The complaint alleges the accused product is formed by ECM and cites a LinkedIn post by Defendant Baxter mentioning "[h]igh precision machining" as making it possible to "seal and control the clearance." ¶¶34, 57 col. 1:26-29
...in which the rotor contacting surfaces of the stator have been heat treated for increased surface hardness. The product is advertised as having a "surface hardened for increased longevity." A screenshot from a video allegedly shows a technical drawing specifying a "NITRIDING" process, a method of heat treatment for surface hardening (Compl. p. 13). ¶¶35, 58 col. 30:51-53

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over the term "electrochemical machining (ECM)." The complaint supports this element by referencing a statement about "high precision machining." The case may turn on whether Defendants' actual manufacturing process is equivalent to ECM as claimed in the patent, or if "high precision machining" describes a distinct, non-infringing process.
  • Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused stator is "formed from a single integral block of material," as required by the claim, beyond the marketing description of being "seamless"? A key factual question will be whether the product is machined from a single monolithic workpiece or is constructed from multiple pieces joined together in a way that appears seamless.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "electrochemical machining (ECM)"

  • Context and Importance: This term defines a specific manufacturing method required by Claim 1. The infringement allegation for this element relies on a combination of "information and belief" and a reference to "high precision machining" (Compl. ¶57). Practitioners may focus on this term because the distinction between ECM and other forms of precision machining could be dispositive of infringement.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that ECM should be given its plain and ordinary meaning in the field of manufacturing, potentially encompassing a range of related electrochemical processes.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a detailed description of an ECM process, including a dedicated figure (Fig. 36) illustrating a cathode tool, an anode workpiece, and a flowing electrolyte. (’992 Patent, col. 25:61-26:67). A party could argue this detailed disclosure limits the claim term to the specific type of process depicted.

The Term: "formed from a single integral block of material"

  • Context and Importance: This limitation defines the stator's fundamental construction. The complaint alleges that the product's "seamless" nature satisfies this requirement (Compl. ¶53). The definition of this term is critical because it may distinguish between a stator machined from one solid piece and one assembled from multiple components, even if joined flawlessly.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that "integral" means the final product functions as a single, inseparable unit, regardless of its starting form.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's summary distinguishes the invention from prior art involving "plural axial stator sections connected end to end" (’992 Patent, col. 1:43-45). This contrast suggests an intent to claim a stator that originates from a single, monolithic workpiece, thereby excluding stators made from joined or welded sections.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement against the individual defendants, CEO Wolters and business partner Baxter, based on their alleged controlling roles and active participation in marketing and selling the accused products in the U.S. (Compl. ¶¶ 21, 23, 47-48). It also alleges contributory infringement, stating that the products, and specifically the stators, are not staple articles of commerce and were especially made for an infringing use (Compl. ¶46).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendants' purported knowledge of the ’992 Patent "since at least as early as June 15, 2021," nearly four years prior to the filing of the amended complaint (Compl. ¶¶ 61-62).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

  • A central evidentiary question will be one of manufacturing process equivalence: does the "high precision machining" referenced in Defendants' marketing constitute the specific process of "electrochemical machining (ECM)" as required by Claim 1, or is there a fundamental mismatch in the manufacturing technology used?
  • The case will also involve a core issue of definitional scope: can the claim term "formed from a single integral block of material," when read in light of the patent's distinction from multi-part stators, be construed to cover a product merely described as "seamless," or is it limited to a stator machined from a monolithic workpiece?
  • Finally, a key factual question for willfulness and inducement will be pre-suit knowledge: can the Plaintiff substantiate its allegation that Defendants were aware of the ’992 Patent as of the specific June 15, 2021 date, establishing the requisite intent for these claims?