DCT
6:25-cv-00274
Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations LLC v. Nov Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, LLC (California) and Baker Hughes Holdings, LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: National Oilwell Varco, L.P. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Reed Smith LLP
- Case Identification: 6:25-cv-00274, E.D. Tex., 10/09/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains regular and established places of business within the district, including a facility in Tyler, Texas, and has committed acts of infringement in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s oilfield drill bits and associated polycrystalline diamond compact (PDC) cutters infringe three patents related to the geometry and arrangement of cutting elements on earth-boring tools.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns the design of cutting elements for drill bits used in the oil and gas industry, a field where innovations in cutter geometry can yield significant improvements in drilling efficiency and tool durability.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the current Defendant, National Oilwell Varco, L.P., assumed the assets and liabilities of a predecessor entity, National Oilwell DHT, L.P., on or around December 31, 2021. Plaintiff also alleges providing pre-suit notice of infringement to Defendant via emails on May 28, 2025, and June 13, 2025.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2010-02-05 | Earliest Priority Date for ’356 Patent |
| 2010-05-03 | Earliest Priority Date for ’807 Patent |
| 2012-10-26 | Earliest Priority Date for ’461 Patent |
| 2014-08-05 | ’356 Patent Issued |
| 2016-04-05 | ’461 Patent Issued |
| 2019-10-22 | ’807 Patent Issued |
| 2020-09-27 | Alleged First Infringing Sale of ION+ 4DX Cutter Technology |
| 2022-06-25 | Alleged First Infringing Sale of ION+ Premium Drill Bit PDC Cutter Technology |
| 2022-12-03 | Alleged First Infringing Sale of Pegasus Series Drill Bits |
| 2025-03-21 | Alleged First Infringing Sale of ION+ Eclipse PDC Cutter Technology |
| 2025-05-28 | Plaintiff Notified Defendant of Asserted Patents |
| 2025-06-13 | Plaintiff Provided Defendant with Claim Charts |
| 2025-10-09 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,794,356 - "Shaped Cutting Elements on Drill Bits and Other Earth-Boring Tools, and Methods of Forming Same" (issued August 5, 2014)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent background describes the operational mechanics of various earth-boring tools, implicitly noting the need for improved cutting efficiency and stability in subterranean formations (Compl. ¶22; ’356 Patent, col. 1:21-col. 2:16).
- The Patented Solution: The invention combines two distinct types of cutting elements on a single drill bit: "shearing" cutters with a substantially planar face and "gouging" cutters with a non-planar face. The gouging elements are positioned rotationally behind the shearing elements and are oriented at a specific forward rake angle, allowing the tool to simultaneously shear and gouge the rock formation (Compl. ¶22; ’356 Patent, col. 2:20-42). This dual-action approach is intended to improve both drilling performance and tool life (’356 Patent, col. 10:59-68).
- Technical Importance: Combining different cutter types on a single tool represents an effort to optimize rock destruction by employing multiple mechanical actions—shearing and crushing/gouging—concurrently.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent method claims 19 and 26 (Compl. ¶45).
- Essential elements of independent claim 19 include:
- Mounting a shearing cutting element with a substantially planar cutting face to a blade on an earth-boring tool.
- Mounting a backup gouging cutting element with a non-planar cutting face rotationally behind the shearing element on the blade.
- The gouging element having a longitudinal central axis angled to provide a forward rake angle greater than approximately fifteen degrees.
- Positioning the non-planar face for crushing and gouging the formation when the tool is rotated.
U.S. Patent No. 9,303,461 - "Cutting Elements Having Curved or Annular Configurations for Earth-Boring Tools Including Such Cutting Elements, and Related Methods" (issued April 5, 2016)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent is directed at mitigating "balling," a phenomenon where rock cuttings accumulate on the face of a drill bit, which can clog the tool and impede drilling progress (Compl. ¶24; ’461 Patent, col. 8:1-5).
- The Patented Solution: The invention consists of a cutting element made of a volume of polycrystalline hard material that has an "annular configuration." This ring-like shape defines an aperture, or opening, through the cutter. The aperture provides a path for formation cuttings to pass through the cutter element itself, rather than accumulating on its face, thereby maintaining cutting efficiency (Compl. ¶24; ’461 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1A).
- Technical Importance: This design offers a structural solution to the hydraulic problem of clearing cuttings from the bit face, a persistent challenge in drilling operations.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (cutting element) and 9 (earth-boring tool), as well as dependent claims (Compl. ¶59).
- Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- A substrate with a front end surface, back end surface, and at least one side surface.
- A volume of polycrystalline hard material on the front end surface.
- The hard material having an annular configuration defining at least one aperture extending through it.
- The volume of hard material having an average radial width of 3.0 mm or less.
- The aperture being devoid of solid material and defining a space with one or more openings to the exterior.
U.S. Patent No. 10,450,807 - "Earth-Boring Tools Having Shaped Cutting Elements" (issued October 22, 2019)
Technology Synopsis
The complaint alleges this patent discloses a cutting element with a specifically engineered geometry to improve durability and cutting efficiency over time (Compl. ¶26). The invention defines a cutting element by the relationships between multiple surfaces: a front-cutting surface, an end-cutting surface, and first and second lateral side surfaces, which creates a durable cutting edge (’807 Patent, Abstract, col. 12:28-40).
Asserted Claims
Independent claims 11 (earth-boring tool) and 20 (fixed-cutter bit) (Compl. ¶71).
Accused Features
Defendant's cutter technology marketed as ION+ 4DX Cutter Technology (Compl. ¶71).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are Defendant's Pegasus Series Drill Bits and various cutter technologies, including those marketed under the ION+ brand, such as ION+ Premium, ION+ Eclipse, and ION+ 4DX PDC Cutter Technology (Compl. ¶¶28-32).
Functionality and Market Context
- The Pegasus Series Drill Bits are alleged to feature a "dual-diameter design with two rows of cutters on each blade, one leading and one trailing," where the leading row performs a "plough effect" and the trailing row "crushes the rock formation" (Compl. ¶28). An exemplary image shows a complex drill bit with numerous cutters arranged on its blades (Compl. p. 7).
- The ION+ Eclipse PDC Cutter Technology is alleged to employ a "curved cutting face made of PDC" (Compl. ¶31). An image in the complaint depicts a cutter with a distinct concave or recessed face (Compl. p. 9).
- The ION+ 4DX Cutter Technology is alleged to employ a "shaped cutting face to minimize surface contact between the cutter and the formation during drilling" (Compl. ¶32). A provided image shows a cutter with a geometrically complex, multi-faceted cutting face (Compl. p. 10).
- The complaint alleges these products are engineered drill bits and borehole enlargement products for the oil and gas industry (Compl. ¶28).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint references, but does not attach, claim chart exhibits. The analysis below is based on the narrative infringement allegations in the complaint body.
’356 Patent Infringement Allegations (based on Claim 19)
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 19) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| mounting a shearing cutting element comprising an at least substantially planar cutting face to a blade... | Defendant allegedly mounts shearing cutters with planar cutting faces, such as those in its ION+ Premium line, to its Pegasus Series Drill Bits. | ¶48 | col. 16:21-29 |
| mounting a backup gouging cutting element comprising a non-planar cutting face rotationally behind the shearing cutting element on the blade... | Defendant allegedly mounts gouging cutters with non-planar cutting faces rotationally behind the shearing cutters on the blades of its Pegasus Series Drill Bits. | ¶48 | col. 16:30-34 |
| ...the backup gouging cutting element has a longitudinal central axis angled...such that the...element has a forward rake angle greater than approximately fifteen degrees... | Defendant's accused gouging cutters are allegedly oriented to have a forward rake angle exceeding fifteen degrees. | ¶48 | col. 16:35-42 |
| ...the non-planar cutting face is positioned and oriented for at least one of crushing and gouging the surface of the subterranean formation... | The non-planar face of the accused gouging cutters is allegedly positioned to crush and gouge the formation during drilling. | ¶48 | col. 16:42-46 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Definitional Questions: A central issue may be whether Defendant's cutters can be distinctly classified as "shearing" (planar face) and "gouging" (non-planar face) under the patent's definitions, or if the accused cutters possess hybrid characteristics that blur this distinction.
- Factual Questions: The allegation that the accused gouging elements have a "forward rake angle greater than approximately fifteen degrees" presents a specific factual question that will likely require expert analysis and reverse engineering of the accused products.
’461 Patent Infringement Allegations (based on Claim 1)
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a substrate having a front end surface, an opposing back end surface, and at least one side surface... | The accused ION+ Eclipse PDC Cutter Technology allegedly includes a substrate with the claimed surfaces. | ¶62 | col. 10:29-33 |
| a volume of polycrystalline hard material disposed on the front end surface, the volume of polycrystalline hard material having an annular configuration defining at least one aperture... | The ION+ Eclipse cutter allegedly includes a volume of polycrystalline material with an annular configuration defining an aperture. | ¶62 | col. 11:47-52 |
| the volume of polycrystalline hard material having an average radial width... of 3.0 mm or less... | The polycrystalline hard material on the accused cutter allegedly has an average radial width of 3.0 mm or less. | ¶62 | col. 11:53-57 |
| the at least one aperture devoid of solid material and at least partially defining a volume of space... having one or more openings through the volume of polycrystalline hard material to the volume of space from the exterior... | The aperture in the accused cutter is allegedly devoid of material and provides an opening from the cutter's interior space to its exterior. | ¶63 | col. 11:58-64 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The analysis may turn on the scope of the term "annular configuration." The question for the court will be whether the specific geometry of the accused ION+ Eclipse cutter, which the complaint describes as having a "curved cutting face," falls within the patent's definition of "annular."
- Technical Questions: The claim's dimensional limitation requiring an "average radial width... of 3.0 mm or less" is a precise technical requirement. Infringement will depend on factual evidence derived from measuring the accused products.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
For the ’356 Patent: "shearing cutting element" and "gouging cutting element"
Context and Importance
The entire infringement theory for the ’356 patent rests on the assertion that the accused drill bits combine these two distinct and separately-defined types of cutters. The definitions of these terms will determine whether the accused products meet the claim limitations.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent defines the terms functionally. A "shearing cutting element" is one that cuts "at least primarily by a shearing mechanism," while a "gouging cutting element" cuts "at least primarily by at least one of a gouging and a crushing mechanism" (’356 Patent, col. 4:5-16). This functional language could support an interpretation that covers any elements performing these primary functions, regardless of precise shape.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent also provides structural definitions, stating a "shearing cutting element" has an "at least substantially planar cutting face" and a "gouging cutting element" has a "non-planar cutting face" (’356 Patent, col. 4:5-12). This language, tied to specific physical structures, could support a narrower construction that excludes cutters with hybrid or complex face geometries.
For the ’461 Patent: "annular configuration"
Context and Importance
This term is the central structural limitation of the asserted claims. Whether the accused ION+ Eclipse cutter infringes will depend on whether its geometry is properly characterized as an "annular configuration."
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states the term is to be interpreted "in a broad sense, and include not only circular configurations, but also oval, elliptical and other configurations approximating a ring" (’461 Patent, col. 5:22-26). This explicit instruction could support a broad construction covering a wide variety of ring-like shapes that define an aperture.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The embodiments shown in the patent figures consistently depict a complete, unbroken ring of polycrystalline material surrounding a central aperture (e.g., ’461 Patent, Figs. 1A, 2A). A defendant may argue that the term should be limited to such continuous, fully-enclosed ring structures, as opposed to more open or C-shaped geometries.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all three patents. Inducement is alleged based on Defendant's marketing, selling, and providing instructions for its products through its website (Compl. ¶¶49, 64, 77). Contributory infringement is alleged on the basis that Defendant sells key components (cutters and drill bits) that are a material part of the patented inventions and are not staple articles of commerce (Compl. ¶¶50, 65, 78).
Willful Infringement
Willfulness is alleged for all three patents. The complaint bases this allegation on Defendant's alleged knowledge of the patents since at least May 28, 2025, and knowledge of its infringing behavior since at least June 13, 2025, arising from pre-suit communications (Compl. ¶¶39-40, 54, 67, 80).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional classification: Can the accused cutters on Defendant's drill bits be categorized as meeting the ’356 patent’s distinct structural definitions of "shearing" (planar face) and "gouging" (non-planar face), or do the accused products employ geometries that fall outside this binary framework?
- A second key issue will be one of claim scope and measurement: Does the accused ION+ Eclipse cutter's "curved cutting face" fall within the scope of the term "annular configuration" as used in the ’461 patent, and can Plaintiff present factual evidence that the accused products meet the specific "3.0 mm or less" dimensional limitation of the claims?
- Finally, a central evidentiary question will be one of geometric mapping: Can the complex, multi-surface geometry of the accused ION+ 4DX cutters be shown to map onto the specific arrangement of planar and curved surfaces required by the asserted claims of the ’807 patent?