DCT

3:25-cv-01553

SitePro Inc v. Plow Tech LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 3:25-cv-01553, N.D. Tex., 06/17/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Northern District of Texas based on an agreement by certain defendants not to contest venue, a forum selection clause in a prior Asset Purchase Agreement, and Defendants' alleged commission of infringing acts and maintenance of regular and established places of business within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ OnPing industrial monitoring platform and associated hardware infringe four patents related to the remote control, monitoring, and management of fluid-handling equipment.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) systems, specifically architectures designed to improve reliability and scalability for remote industrial sites, such as those in the oil and gas sector.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint states this action was previously filed in the Western District of Texas and was refiled in the Northern District of Texas after Defendants contested venue. Plaintiff alleges Defendants have had knowledge of the asserted patents since at least the filing of the prior W.D. Tex. case, which forms part of the basis for its willfulness allegations.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2012-01-01 Alleged earliest conception date of inventions
2012-12-07 Earliest priority date for all Asserted Patents
2014-02-11 U.S. Patent No. 8,649,909 issues
2018-02-20 U.S. Patent No. 9,898,014 issues
2021-11-16 U.S. Patent No. 11,175,680 issues
2023-08-15 U.S. Patent No. 11,726,504 issues
2024-08-20 PakEnergy announces completion of its acquisition of Plow
2025-06-17 Complaint filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,649,909 - Remote control of fluid-handling devices

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes challenges with prior art SCADA systems used for remote fluid-handling facilities, noting that many systems fail when a network connection is lost because the control logic resides centrally. It also identifies the burden of installing special-purpose software on user devices to exercise remote control, which hinders scalability and user adoption (Compl. ¶41; ’909 Patent, col. 1:33-42).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system architecture featuring a central "command-center server" and distributed "site master controllers" located at remote fluid-handling sites. These on-site controllers are designed to receive commands from the central server but can then execute them locally and maintain control over field devices even if the network connection to the central server is lost. The site master-controller also performs protocol translation, converting commands from a common protocol used by the server into various device-specific protocols (e.g., Modbus, Ethernet) used by equipment in the field (’909 Patent, Fig. 1; col. 10:39-50).
  • Technical Importance: This "edge computing" approach aimed to enhance the reliability and operational continuity of industrial control systems in environments with intermittent or unreliable network connectivity (Compl. ¶47).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 and dependent claims 2-21 (Compl. ¶¶55, 66).
  • Essential elements of independent Claim 1 include:
    • A system for remote control comprising a command-center server and a plurality of geographically distributed site master controllers.
    • The command-center server stores multiple user accounts corresponding to different operating entities and facilities.
    • Each site master controller comprises a communication module, network interface, memory, and processors.
    • The site master controller is configured to receive commands from the server in a first protocol.
    • It can determine different target states for a device over time and is operative to maintain control of the device in the absence of a network connection to the server.
    • It translates the commands into a plurality of different protocols suitable for the specific fluid-handling devices.
    • It sends the translated commands to local controllers to drive the devices to the target states.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert all claims 1-21 (Compl. ¶55).

U.S. Patent No. 9,898,014 - Remote control of fluid-handling devices

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: This patent, part of the same family as the '909 patent, addresses the same foundational problems of network unreliability and the need for special-purpose software in traditional SCADA systems (’014 Patent, col. 1:44-53).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention claims a hosted, web-based remote monitoring and control system with a specific multi-tenant account structure. It describes a computer-implemented datastore that stores multiple accounts for different entities operating different groups of oil and gas facilities. The system is configured to provide different levels of access, allowing certain users to control equipment at one group of facilities while other users are only authorized to view data from those or other facilities, all managed via web browser interfaces (’014 Patent, col. 4:24-44; col. 16:3-40).
  • Technical Importance: This patented solution provides a technical framework for a secure, multi-tenant Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) platform for industrial control, allowing multiple distinct customers to manage their respective assets through a single, unified system (Compl. ¶¶26, 94).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 and dependent claims 2-23 (Compl. ¶¶83, 94).
  • Essential elements of independent Claim 1 include:
    • A hosted, web-based remote industrial monitoring and control system.
    • A computer-implemented datastore storing a plurality of accounts for different entities and network addresses for equipment accessible via cellular networks.
    • A facility-interface module to obtain data from sensors and send commands to actuators.
    • A web-interface module to present control interfaces in web browsers and receive user commands.
    • A specific account structure is required: a first account to control a first group of facilities; a second account to control a second, different group of facilities; a third account to view reports from the first group; and a fourth account to view reports from the second group.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert all claims 1-23 (Compl. ¶83).

U.S. Patent No. 11,175,680 - Remote control of fluid-handling devices

Technology Synopsis

The ’680 Patent claims a non-transitory, machine-readable medium with instructions for a server and on-site controller. The server receives a command with a target value from a user, determines the network address of the appropriate on-site controller, and sends the target value to that controller. The controller then measures a fluid property, determines if it satisfies the target value, and if not, obtains a set point based on the command to control a local actuator (’680 Patent, Abstract, col. 16:47-17:2).

Asserted Claims

Independent Claim 1 and dependent claims 2-20 (Compl. ¶¶112, 123).

Accused Features

The complaint alleges that the OnPing cloud-based infrastructure functions as the claimed server and that the on-site Lumberjack device functions as the claimed controller, executing instructions to control field equipment based on user commands (Compl. ¶¶125-132).

U.S. Patent No. 11,726,504 - Remote control of fluid-handling devices

Technology Synopsis

The ’504 Patent claims a fluid processing system comprising an on-site computer system and a server system. The on-site system receives sensor data and provides for remote control. The server receives this sensor data, authenticates a remote user's credentials, determines authorization for a specific site while hosting data for other unauthorized sites, provides a user interface to the remote user, and relays user commands back to the on-site system to change a device's state (’504 Patent, Abstract, col. 17:12-66).

Asserted Claims

Independent Claim 1 and dependent claims 2-20 (Compl. ¶¶137, 148).

Accused Features

The complaint alleges the Lumberjack device is the on-site computer system and the OnPing platform is the server system that authenticates users, provides a remote interface for authorized sites, and relays commands to effectuate control (Compl. ¶¶151-160).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The Accused System is identified as the "OnPing system," which comprises the "OnPing cloud SCADA platform" and associated on-site hardware, including "Lumberjack Edge Computers" (Compl. ¶¶17, 37, 70).

Functionality and Market Context

The OnPing system is described as a platform for remote monitoring and control in the oil and gas industry, offering services like "Continuous Monitoring," "Automated Control," and a "User-Friendly Interface" (Compl. ¶68). The complaint alleges the system architecture involves on-site "Lumberjack" devices that act as "micro server[s]," which poll field devices over a local network, store data, and pass the results to remote "OnPing Cloud Services" via a cellular connection (Compl. ¶¶70-71). A diagram in the complaint illustrates this architecture, showing on-site equipment communicating with a Lumberjack device, which in turn communicates with the cloud services via a cell tower (Compl. p. 25). The complaint alleges this system allows users to remotely "make changes to operating set-points" and "control specialized processes and equipment" (Compl. ¶¶32, 49).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 8,649,909 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a command-center server having a data store storing multiple user accounts, each user account corresponding to a set of one or more oil wells... each set being operated by a different entity... The Accused System's OnPing platform is a command-center server that provides a portal for users from different entities to log in and manage their respective assets. ¶69 col. 4:24-34
a plurality of geographically distributed site master controllers... The OnPing system uses "Lumberjack Edge Computers" as geographically distributed controllers at customer sites. A diagram shows multiple on-site systems connecting to the central cloud service. ¶70 col. 3:15-22
receiving, via the network interface, from the command-center server, a plurality of commands encoded in a first protocol... The Lumberjack device receives commands from the OnPing server to control equipment, such as making changes to operating set-points. ¶75 col. 10:39-44
wherein the respective site-master controller is operative to maintain control of the fluid handling devices in the absence of a network connection to the command-center server... The complaint alleges that the Lumberjack device proceeds "even in the temporary absence of a network connection... picking up where it left off as soon as a connection is re-established." ¶76 col. 5:9-15
translating the plurality of commands into translated commands encoded in a plurality of protocols different from the first protocol... The Lumberjack device is advertised as supporting a "Wide Range of Available Protocols" and can communicate with devices using protocols like Modbus. ¶77 col. 9:1-12
sending the translated commands to respective local controllers of the respective fluid-handling devices... The Lumberjack device sends commands to local field devices, such as PLCs, to control equipment on site. ¶78 col. 6:49-55

U.S. Patent No. 9,898,014 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A hosted, web-based, remote industrial monitoring and control system for geographically distributed facilities in oil and gas fields... The OnPing system is described as a "hosted SCADA / HMI" that allows users to manage assets in the field. ¶96 col. 16:3-5
a computer-implemented datastore storing... a plurality of accounts, each account corresponding to an entity operating one or more... facilities... The OnPing system provides a single portal for users from different entities to log in and allows for the creation of new user accounts, which are stored in a datastore. ¶¶97-98 col. 4:24-44
a computer-implemented facility-interface module... configured to obtain data from... sensors and send commands to... actuators... via... cellular network connections... The Lumberjack device polls all field devices on a local network and passes results to remote servers, allegedly via cellular connections. A system architecture diagram shows a cell tower as the communication link. ¶100 col. 4:46-59
a computer-implemented web-interface module... configured to send instructions to present control interfaces in web browsers... OnPing is allegedly "accessible from any mobile internet enabled device" and allows users to access "HMI's and even setpoints from anywhere." ¶101 col. 4:5-15
wherein the plurality of accounts include a first account, a second account, a third account, and a fourth account; [with specific control/view permissions for two different groups of facilities] The complaint alleges on "information and belief" that OnPing has more than four users and that its account structure provides the claimed differentiated control and view permissions across different customer facility groups. ¶¶103-107 col. 16:26-40

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central dispute for the ’909 Patent may be whether the accused "Lumberjack" device meets the definition of a "site master controller." The analysis may focus on whether its alleged function of supporting a "Wide Range of Available Protocols" constitutes "translating... commands" as required by the claim, or if it performs a function that Defendants may characterize as mere protocol conversion or data routing.
  • Technical Questions: A key evidentiary question for the ’909 Patent will be the extent of the Lumberjack's autonomous capability. The complaint alleges the device maintains control "in the absence of a network connection" (Compl. ¶76), but the technical evidence demonstrating this capability, beyond short-term buffering, will be critical. For the ’014 Patent, a primary factual question is whether the OnPing system is actually used in a manner that creates the specific four-part account and permission structure recited in Claim 1. The complaint's reliance on "information and belief" suggests this may be a focal point of discovery (Compl. ¶¶103, 105).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"site master controller" (’909 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the core on-site component of the claimed invention. Its construction will be critical to determining whether the accused "Lumberjack Edge Computer" infringes. Practitioners may focus on this term because Defendants could argue the Lumberjack is a simpler data gateway or edge device that lacks the specific autonomous control and translation capabilities implied by the patent's use of "master controller."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the component's function as being "operative to receive commands... and implement those commands to completion... even if a network connection... is temporarily lost" (’909 Patent, col. 5:9-15), suggesting a focus on operational autonomy.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification depicts the "site master-controller" with a specific internal architecture, including a distinct "protocol multiplexer" and multiple "command translators" (’909 Patent, Fig. 1). A narrower construction might require the accused device to have a similar internal structure, not just perform a similar function.

"translating the plurality of commands into translated commands encoded in a plurality of protocols different from the first protocol" (’909 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the invention's claimed efficiency gain. The infringement analysis will turn on whether the accused Lumberjack's handling of multiple communication standards, such as Modbus, meets this definition. Practitioners may focus on this term because the distinction between "translating" a command versus merely re-formatting or encapsulating data for a different protocol can be a subtle but dispositive technical issue.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification explains that translation "may abstract the details of the site-specific implementations away from those implementing the command-center server" (’909 Patent, col. 9:39-43), suggesting a functional definition focused on simplifying the server's task.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification gives specific examples, such as translating a "generic command to open a valve" into different device-specific protocols and determining a "corresponding command via calculation or look-up table, such as a modbus function code" (’909 Patent, col. 9:31-38, col. 9:46-51). This could support an interpretation requiring more than simple data pass-through.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, asserting that Defendants provide "product manuals and other technical information" that instruct and encourage customers to use the Accused System in a manner that directly infringes the patents (Compl. ¶¶60, 88). Contributory infringement is also alleged on the basis that the Accused System is "especially made or especially adapted for use in the infringement" of the patents and is not a staple article of commerce (Compl. ¶¶61, 89).

Willful Infringement

Willfulness is alleged based on Defendants' purported knowledge of the Asserted Patents and the infringing nature of the Accused System since "at least the filing and service of the original complaint in the W.D. Tex. case" (Compl. ¶¶58, 86, 115, 140). This frames the willfulness claim as being primarily based on post-suit conduct.

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

  • A core issue will be one of technical capability: does the accused "Lumberjack" edge device perform the autonomous control and command translation functions of the claimed "site master controller," particularly in maintaining local operational control during a network outage, or does it function primarily as a data aggregator and gateway dependent on the central server?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of architectural correspondence: for the '014 patent, what evidence will emerge from discovery to substantiate the complaint's "information and belief" allegations that the OnPing platform is configured and used with the specific four-part, multi-tenant account and permission structure required by the claim?
  • A central question of claim scope will be whether the act of supporting multiple industrial communication standards, as the Accused System allegedly does, is equivalent to "translating... commands into... protocols" as described and claimed in the '909 patent, or if there is a fundamental mismatch in the technical operation performed.