DCT
3:25-cv-01554
SitePro Inc v. Plow Tech LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: SitePro, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: Plow Technologies LLC, Plow Technologies Texas LLC, PakEnergy, LLC, and related entities (Oklahoma, Texas, and Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Perkins Coie LLP
- Case Identification: 3:25-cv-01554, N.D. Tex., 06/17/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Northern District of Texas, asserting that an asset purchase agreement between certain defendants contains a forum selection clause for Dallas County, and alternatively that defendants maintain regular and established places of business in the district and conduct infringing activities through agents or alter ego entities. This filing follows a voluntary dismissal of a prior action in the Western District of Texas after defendants contested venue in that district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ OnPing cloud SCADA platform and Lumberjack edge computing devices, used for remote industrial automation, infringe four patents related to the remote control of fluid-handling devices.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns systems for remotely monitoring and controlling industrial equipment, such as pumps and valves at oil and gas facilities, by combining on-site controllers with a centralized, cloud-based platform.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint states this action is a refiling of a case originally filed in the Western District of Texas (6:24-cv-00646), which the parties jointly moved to dismiss after Defendants challenged venue. Plaintiff alleges Defendants gained knowledge of the asserted patents at least as of the filing of that prior case.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2012-12-07 | Earliest Priority Date for ’078, ’871, ’403, and ’461 Patents |
| 2016-05-17 | ’078 Patent Issued |
| 2019-11-26 | ’871 Patent Issued |
| 2022-04-05 | ’403 Patent Issued |
| 2024-06-25 | ’461 Patent Issued |
| 2024-08-20 | PakEnergy completes acquisition of Plow Technologies |
| 2025-06-17 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,342,078 - Remote control of fluid-handling devices (Issued May 17, 2016)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes shortcomings in traditional Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) systems used for remote industrial sites, noting that they often fail when a network connection is lost because the control logic resides at a central server, not at the field location. These systems also suffered from poor interoperability, requiring installation of special-purpose software on the central server for each new type of field device, which hindered scalability (Compl. ¶¶41-43; ’871 Patent, col. 1:50-69). Note: The '078 patent and '871 patent share a specification.
- The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a system architecture that pushes intelligence to the "edge" of the network. A local "site master-controller" is placed at the industrial site and can receive high-level commands from a remote central server. This local controller can then execute the command to completion, even if the network connection is lost (Compl. ¶45; ’871 Patent, col. 5:10-19). A key component is a "protocol multiplexer" within the local controller that translates commands received in a "shared protocol" from the server into various device-specific protocols (e.g., Modbus RTU, Ethernet, analog voltage signals) used by the actual pumps, valves, and sensors in the field (Compl. ¶¶49-51; ’871 Patent, col. 8:48-9:14).
- Technical Importance: This approach was designed to enhance the reliability of remote control systems by enabling autonomous local operation during network outages and to improve scalability by abstracting device-specific communication protocols away from the central server (Compl. ¶47).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-9, 11-13, and 15-19 (Compl. ¶55).
- Independent Claim 1 (Method) contains the following essential elements:
- Receiving, via a network interface, a plurality of user-directed instructions to control fluid-handling devices, with the instructions being received encoded in a shared protocol.
- Obtaining a target state for a device based on the instructions, which involves determining a plurality of different target states for the device that correspond to different times.
- For each instruction, selecting a respective device protocol from a plurality of protocols that are different from the shared protocol.
- Translating the received instructions into one or more translated instructions encoded in the selected device-specific protocol, with the translated instructions including the determined plurality of different target states.
- Sending the translated instructions to the fluid-handling device to cause it to attempt to achieve the target state.
U.S. Patent No. 10,488,871 - Remote control of fluid-handling devices (Issued November 26, 2019)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge of managing numerous remote industrial facilities for multiple different entities through a single, centralized platform, which requires robust and secure access control (Compl. ¶¶41-43; ’871 Patent, col. 1:50-69).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a hosted, multi-tenant method and system for remote industrial control. The system stores records that associate different fluid-handling facilities with different accounts or entities. It is configured to provide distinct user interfaces and permissions based on a user's account, allowing a user from one entity to control their authorized equipment while only viewing (or not seeing at all) the equipment of another entity. The claims specifically lay out a four-part account structure with differing permissions across two distinct groups of facilities (’871 Patent, col. 4:25-44; ’871 Patent, col. 17:5-18:14).
- Technical Importance: This invention provides a technical framework for a Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) platform for industrial control, enabling a single provider to securely host and manage remote operations for multiple, distinct customers (Compl. ¶26).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 18 and dependent claims 19-34 (Compl. ¶79).
- Independent Claim 18 (Method) contains the following essential elements:
- Storing records comprising a plurality of accounts that associate different fluid-handling facilities with different entities, and addresses for the control equipment at those facilities.
- Obtaining data from sensors and sending commands to actuators at the facilities via network connections.
- Sending instructions to present control interfaces to users logged into specific accounts.
- Receiving a user command to actuate a device.
- Identifying the address for the facility where the device is located.
- Sending instructions to the facility to actuate the device, wherein the system supports at least four account types with specific, differing permissions:
- First Account: Authorized to send commands to a first group of facilities.
- Second Account: Authorized to send commands to a second, different group of facilities.
- Third Account: Authorized only to view data reports from the first group of facilities.
- Fourth Account: Authorized only to view data reports from the second group of facilities.
U.S. Patent No. 11,294,403 - Remote control of fluid-handling devices (Issued April 5, 2022)
- Technology Synopsis: This patent, which shares a specification with the ’078 and ’871 patents, claims a system comprising a first computer system at a fluid-handling site and a remote server system. The invention covers the interaction wherein the server receives data from the on-site computer, obtains and verifies credentials from a remote user, provides a user interface, and causes the on-site computer to execute a user's command by changing a device's state through a sequence of target states over time (Compl. ¶121).
- Asserted Claims: 1-30 (Compl. ¶110).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the combination of the on-site Lumberjack computer and the remote OnPing server system infringes by performing the claimed functions of receiving sensor data, authenticating users, and relaying commands for execution at the edge (Compl. ¶¶124-131).
U.S. Patent No. 12,019,461 - Remote control of fluid-handling devices (Issued June 25, 2024)
- Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a method of fluid processing that mirrors the system claimed in the ’403 Patent. The claimed steps include receiving fluid property information at a local computer, providing remote control, receiving that information at a remote server, authenticating credentials, providing a user interface based on that data, and causing the local computer to execute a command as a sequence of target states over time (Compl. ¶147).
- Asserted Claims: 1-17 (Compl. ¶136).
- Accused Features: The complaint accuses the Defendants' method of operating the OnPing and Lumberjack system, alleging it performs the claimed steps of remote monitoring and control (Compl. ¶¶150-157).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentality is the "OnPing system," which includes "Lumberjack edge computers" (Compl. ¶¶36-37, 70).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint describes the OnPing system as an "innovative cloud SCADA platform for oilfield applications, manufacturing, and more" (Compl. ¶37). It is alleged to provide remote monitoring and control of industrial equipment like pumps and valves through a web-based human-machine interface (HMI) (Compl. ¶69). The system architecture allegedly involves local "Lumberjack" computers installed at customer sites that poll field devices, store results, and communicate with remote "OnPing" servers (Compl. ¶70). A key alleged feature is the ability for the Lumberjack computer to continue operating and archiving data "even in the temporary absence of a network connection" (Compl. ¶71). The complaint also presents an architecture diagram from the Defendants' website showing on-site Lumberjack devices communicating with "OnPing Cloud Services" via a cell tower (Compl. p. 23). Defendants are positioned as "a leader in oil and gas production well site automation" (Compl. ¶35).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
9,342,078 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| receiving, via a network interface, a plurality of user-directed instructions to control fluid-handling devices...the plurality of instructions being received encoded in a shared protocol; | Users issue commands such as "start, stop, enable, and disable" through the OnPing HMI to control field equipment like pumps. | ¶69 | col. 6:1-8 |
| after receiving the instructions, determining a plurality of different target states of the at least one of the fluid-handling devices, the plurality of different states each corresponding to different times; | A variable frequency drive (VFD) allegedly ramps up to a target speed through a set of intermediate RPM stages, or scripts are executed at the edge that write a plurality of different setpoints over a sequence of time. | ¶71 | col. 8:30-34 |
| for each of the plurality of instructions, selecting a respective protocol or protocols from among a plurality of protocols different from the shared protocol...wherein at least some of the selected protocols are different from one another; | The Lumberjack edge computer is advertised as supporting a "Wide Range of Available Protocols," and a user guide allegedly shows options for different protocols such as Modbus, ROC TLP, Bristol, and Controllogix. | ¶72 | col. 9:20-33 |
| after determining the plurality of different target states, translating each received instructions into one or more translated instructions encoded in the selected respective protocol...the one or more translated instructions including the determined plurality of different target states; | The Lumberjack's advertised support for a "Wide Range of Available Protocols" is alleged to meet this element, for example by importing parameters for a Modbus device which translates user instructions into Modbus-specific formats. | ¶73 | col. 9:34-44 |
| sending each translated instructions to at least the fluid-handling device to which the respective translated instruction is directed, wherein at least some of the translated instructions are effective to cause the at least one of the fluid-handling devices to attempt to achieve the target state. | The OnPing system is shown in marketing materials sending instructions to control tank levels and issue commands like "start, stop, enable, and disable" to field devices. A screenshot shows a user interface for writing a value to control a tank level (Compl. p. 28). | ¶74 | col. 6:8-13 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether a user's high-level command in a web HMI (e.g., setting a tank level) constitutes an instruction "encoded in a shared protocol" as the term is used in the patent. Another question is whether a VFD's inherent ramp-up function constitutes "determining a plurality of different target states" as an affirmative step of the claimed method.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that the system determines target states corresponding to "different times." The evidentiary basis for this appears to be the VFD ramp-up or "Time loops" in scripts (Compl. ¶71). A factual dispute could arise over whether the accused system performs this specific function as a result of a single user instruction, or if these are separate, sequential operations.
10,488,871 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 18) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| storing, with one or more processors, records comprising: a plurality of accounts...associating different fluid-handling facilities with different entities; and addresses by which industrial monitoring or control equipment...is accessible... | The OnPing system allegedly provides a single login portal for users from different entities and provides user guides for creating new user accounts, which are stored in a datastore. | ¶¶93-94 | col. 4:25-39 |
| obtaining, with one or more processors implementing a facility-interface module or modules, data from the sensors...and send commands to the actuators... | The Lumberjack device allegedly acts as a "micro server on site, polling all field devices on a local network, archiving, and storing all the results and passing them to our remote servers." | ¶96 | col. 16:46-51 |
| sending, with one or more processors implementing a user-interface module or modules, respective instructions to present respective control interfaces on respective user-computing devices logged in to respective ones of the accounts... | The OnPing platform is alleged to be "accessible from any mobile internet enabled device" to access data, HMIs, and setpoints. | ¶97 | col. 16:52-60 |
| receiving, with the user-interface module or modules, a user command to actuate an actuator entered via a presented control interface; | The system allegedly allows an operator to use a "batch control function" to "close multiple wells simultaneously and pause production for an entire field," which constitutes a user command. | ¶98 | col. 16:61-64 |
| identifying...an address in the datastore corresponding to a facility at which the actuator is located; and sending...instructions...to the facility to actuate the actuator... | User guides allegedly instruct users to enter facility-specific address information (e.g., "PLC URL, PLC port, lumberjack URL, and lumberjack port information") when adding new equipment to the system. The system then uses this to send commands. | ¶¶99-100 | col. 17:1-4 |
| wherein: the plurality of accounts include a first account, a second account, a third account, and a fourth account; [with specific differing permissions for two facility groups] | On "information and belief," the complaint alleges the Accused System has more than four users and provides functionality corresponding to the four claimed account types with differing permissions for control and viewing across different facility groups. | ¶¶101-105 | col. 17:5-18:14 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The final "wherein" clause of Claim 18 recites a very specific four-part user authorization structure. A key legal question will be whether this limitation must be met exactly as recited, or if a system with a more flexible role-based access control scheme that is merely capable of being configured this way can be found to infringe.
- Evidentiary Questions: The complaint alleges the existence of the four claimed account types "on information and belief" (Compl. ¶101). A primary factual question will be what evidence Plaintiff can produce to demonstrate that Defendants' system is actually used or configured in a way that maps onto this specific, rigid permission structure across two distinct groups of facilities. The complaint provides a screenshot for creating a new user, but this does not itself demonstrate the claimed four-part account structure (Compl. p. 34).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
For the ’078 Patent
- The Term: "shared protocol"
- Context and Importance: This term is foundational to the patent's core concept of protocol translation. The infringement theory requires that instructions are received in one "shared protocol" and then translated into different, device-specific protocols. The scope of this term will be critical to determining whether commands originating from a generic web HMI meet this limitation.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification explains that a goal is to allow control from a standard web browser without special software, suggesting the "shared protocol" could encompass communications like HTTP requests that are common to the server and all site-controllers but distinct from device-level protocols like Modbus (’871 Patent, col. 3:54-4:7).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent consistently contrasts the "shared protocol" with device-specific protocols. A party might argue this implies a formally defined, application-layer communication standard used between the server and controllers, not just the transport protocol for web traffic.
For the ’871 Patent
- The Term: "...the plurality of accounts include a first account, a second account, a third account, and a fourth account..." [followed by specific permissions for two different facility groups].
- Context and Importance: This clause defines the specific multi-tenant structure that is the crux of claim 18. The infringement analysis for this claim will likely depend entirely on whether the accused system is found to have this exact structure. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint's support for it is based on "information and belief."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that "includes" means the system must have at least these four account types, but could have others, and that "corresponds to" allows for some flexibility in how the user roles are defined, as long as the functional result is the same.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language is highly specific, defining not just four accounts but their exact permissions relative to two distinct groups of facilities. The detailed nature of the clause suggests it is a deliberate and firm boundary on claim scope, requiring a direct one-to-one mapping with an accused system's user structure. The specification's description of organizing the datastore by accounts with identifiers for authorized controllers supports this structured interpretation (’871 Patent, col. 4:25-39).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all four asserted patents. The inducement allegations are based on Defendants allegedly providing product manuals and technical information that instruct and encourage customers to use the Accused System in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶58-60, 82-84, 113-115, 139-141).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all four asserted patents. The complaint bases this allegation on Defendants having knowledge of the patents "since at least the filing and service of the original complaint in the W.D. Tex. case," and potentially earlier if Defendants' employees accessed Plaintiff's patent marking webpage (Compl. ¶¶65, 89, 120, 146).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This case appears to present two primary lines of inquiry for the court, one turning on evidentiary proof and the other on claim scope.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of structural correspondence: does the Accused System’s multi-tenant user and permissioning architecture actually implement the specific four-part authorization scheme recited in claim 18 of the ’871 patent? The complaint’s reliance on “information and belief” for this central limitation suggests that discovery into the technical operation and customer configurations of the OnPing platform will be a critical battleground.
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term “shared protocol” from the ’078 patent be construed to cover generic commands initiated from a web-based user interface, or does the intrinsic evidence limit the term to a more formally defined communication protocol existing between the server and on-site controllers? The answer will likely determine whether the protocol translation claims can read on the accused system.