DCT
4:21-cv-01191
Kerr Machine Co v. SPM Oil & Gas Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Kerr Machine Co. (Oklahoma)
- Defendant: SPM Oil & Gas Inc. and S.P.M Flow Control, Inc. (Texas)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Susman Godfrey LLP
- Case Identification: 4:21-cv-01191, N.D. Tex., 10/28/2021
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff Kerr Machine Co. alleges venue is proper in the Northern District of Texas because Defendants reside in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its "Super Seat" valve seat products and pump "Skid Assembly" feet do not infringe three of Defendant’s patents related to valve seats and support structures for high-pressure pumps.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns components for heavy-duty reciprocating pumps used in demanding oilfield applications such as hydraulic fracturing, where equipment durability is critical.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint states this action was precipitated by cease-and-desist letters sent by Defendant to Plaintiff on August 11, 2021, and October 22, 2021. The letters allegedly accused Plaintiff's products of infringement, demanded Plaintiff cease all sales, and threatened litigation.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2013-11-26 | Priority Date for ’071 Patent |
| 2014-07-25 | Priority Date for ’659 and ’037 Patents |
| 2018-01-30 | ’659 Patent Issued |
| 2019-12-31 | ’037 Patent Issued |
| 2020-05-26 | ’071 Patent Issued |
| 2021-08-11 | Defendant sends first cease-and-desist letter to Plaintiff |
| 2021-09-13 | Defendant provides Plaintiff with a claim chart for the ’071 Patent |
| 2021-10-22 | Defendant sends second letter repeating demands and asserting two additional patents |
| 2021-10-28 | Complaint for Declaratory Judgment Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,663,071 - "VALVE SEATS FOR USE IN FRACTURING PUMPS"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,663,071, "VALVE SEATS FOR USE IN FRACTURING PUMPS," issued May 26, 2020.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: In high-pressure fracturing pumps, fluid containing solid particulates causes significant wear, specifically "corrosion, erosion and/or pitting," on the interacting surfaces of valve assemblies, particularly the valve seat, which is difficult and risky to replace ('071 Patent, col. 1:44-67).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a valve seat designed for increased durability. It features a main body and a tapered shoulder, where a wear-resistant insert, such as one made of ceramic, is placed in a "recessed area" on the seating surface that contacts the valve member ('071 Patent, Abstract; col. 8:36-50). This hardened insert is intended to withstand the abrasive fluid and extend the operational life of the valve seat.
- Technical Importance: By incorporating a highly durable material at the specific point of contact and wear, the invention purports to extend the service life of a critical component in an extremely harsh operational environment, reducing downtime and maintenance costs ('071 Patent, col. 1:63-67).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts non-infringement of independent claims 1 and 11 (Compl. ¶25).
- Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- A valve assembly comprising a valve member and a valve seat body.
- The valve seat body has an inner surface forming a fluid bore and an outer surface for support in a fluid passageway.
- A seating surface extends radially from the inner surface and has a recessed area.
- An insert with an outer diameter greater than the recessed area's outer diameter is "frictionally secured inside the recessed area."
- The insert forms at least a portion of the seating surface that contacts the valve member.
- The valve seat body has different first and second end diameters (D1 and D2) to allow for longitudinal support in the passageway.
- The complaint also notes infringement allegations concerning dependent claims 16 and 18 (Compl. ¶25).
U.S. Patent No. 9,879,659 - "SUPPORT FOR RECIPROCATING PUMP"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,879,659, "SUPPORT FOR RECIPROCATING PUMP," issued January 30, 2018.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes conventional power end housings for large reciprocating pumps as being difficult and cumbersome to manufacture and assemble due to their sheer weight and the need for precise component alignment. These housings are also susceptible to damage from "excessive vibrations, bending moments and/or deformation" during operation ('659 Patent, col. 1:40-54).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a support skid for a pump assembly. The skid includes a base and "a plurality of pads extending from the base" that correspond to the feet on the pump's frame assembly ('659 Patent, Abstract). This design is intended to provide a rigid, stable platform that properly supports the pump, mitigates operational forces, and simplifies assembly.
- Technical Importance: The invention aims to provide a support structure that is lighter and easier to assemble while increasing structural rigidity, thereby reducing the likelihood of damage to the pump from operational stresses ('659 Patent, col. 1:47-54).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts non-infringement of independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶36).
- Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- A skid for supporting a reciprocating pump assembly that has end plates with feet and middle plates with at least one foot.
- The skid comprises a base.
- The skid also comprises "a plurality of pads extending from the base."
- At least a portion of the pads correspond to the end plate feet, and another portion of the pads correspond to the feet of the middle plates.
U.S. Patent No. 10,520,037 - "SUPPORT FOR RECIPROCATING PUMP"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,520,037, "SUPPORT FOR RECIPROCATING PUMP," issued December 31, 2019.
- Technology Synopsis: This patent, which is related to the ’659 Patent, also discloses a support skid for a reciprocating pump. The technology addresses the need for a pump support that has a decreased weight and is easily assembled, while also being able to reduce damage from excessive forces caused by vibrations and bending moments during operation (’037 Patent, col. 1:47-54). The solution involves a skid with a base section and a plurality of spaced apart pads that correspond to the feet on the pump frame assembly (’037 Patent, col. 2:4-8; col. 3:9-17).
- Asserted Claims: Claim 16 is asserted (Compl. ¶36).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the "skid assembly" on Plaintiff's pumps, which supports the pump's feet, does not infringe because it lacks "a plurality of spaced apart pads extending from the support surface" (Compl. ¶39).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies two accused instrumentalities: (1) Plaintiff's "Super Seat" valve seat product, and (2) Plaintiff's "Skid Assembly," specifically the "feet" on its reciprocating pumps (Compl. ¶¶ 15, 21).
Functionality and Market Context
- The "Super Seat" is a valve seat for high-pressure pumps used in hydraulic fracturing. The complaint describes it as having a "tapered tungsten carbide insert with a unique assembly design" intended to provide "improved wear resistance" at a lower cost (Compl. ¶14).
- The "Skid Assembly" refers to the support structure for Plaintiff's pumps. The complaint alleges that the power end of its pump has multiple feet that "sit directly on a singular rectangular piece welded to the base" (Compl. ¶38). The complaint further alleges that variations of these "feet" have been used since the 1940s and are common in the industry (Compl. ¶21).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
'071 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Non-Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a seating surface extending radially from the inner surface and facing the valve member, the seating surface having a recessed area... | The complaint alleges that the only seating surfaces on the Super Seat that extend radially from the inner surface do not contain the required recessed area. | ¶27 | col. 11:29-31 |
| an insert... is frictionally secured inside the recessed area... | The complaint alleges that because the Super Seat does not have the claimed recess, it does not have an insert installed or frictionally secured within such a recess. | ¶28 | col. 11:35-41 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The dispute raises the question of how the term "recessed area" should be defined. The analysis may depend on whether any indentation on the seating surface qualifies, or if the term requires a distinct, manufactured cavity specifically designed to receive an insert, as depicted in the patent's figures (e.g., ’071 Patent, Fig. 4, element 250).
- Technical Questions: What is the specific geometry of the accused Super Seat product? A factual determination will be required to ascertain whether its design includes a feature that meets the court's construction of a "recessed area" containing a "frictionally secured" "insert."
'659 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Non-Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a plurality of pads extending from the base... | The complaint alleges that Plaintiff's pump feet sit on a "singular rectangular piece welded to the base," and therefore the skid assembly does not include a "plurality of pads extending from the base." | ¶38 | col. 22:42-47 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central issue will be the construction of "plurality of pads extending from the base." The question for the court is whether this phrase requires multiple, physically distinct structures protruding from the base, or if it can be read to cover designated support locations on a single, continuous plate that is itself attached to the base.
- Technical Questions: What is the precise construction of Plaintiff's accused skid assembly? The complaint alleges a "singular rectangular piece," which presents a direct factual contrast to the "plurality" requirement of the claim.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
'071 Patent
- The Term: "recessed area"
- Context and Importance: This term is central to Plaintiff's non-infringement theory for the ’071 Patent. If the accused "Super Seat" is found to lack a "recessed area" as claimed, it cannot infringe claim 1. Practitioners may focus on whether the term requires a specific geometric configuration intended to house an insert.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term is not explicitly defined in the specification, which could support an argument for its plain and ordinary meaning, potentially covering any area that is set back or depressed relative to the surrounding surface.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's abstract states that "An insert is disposed in the recessed area." This language, coupled with figures showing a distinct cavity (Fig. 4, element 250) designed to receive the insert (196), suggests the "recessed area" is not merely any depression but a structure specifically configured to contain the claimed insert.
'659 Patent
- The Term: "plurality of pads extending from the base"
- Context and Importance: The interpretation of this phrase is dispositive for the infringement analysis of the ’659 Patent (and the related ’037 Patent). Plaintiff's entire non-infringement argument is that its single support plate is not a "plurality of pads."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that "pads" refers to the functional support points on the base, regardless of whether they are formed from one or multiple pieces of material. The purpose is to provide multiple, correctly located support surfaces for the pump feet.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The ordinary meaning of "plurality" is more than one. The claim language distinguishes between the "base" and the "pads extending from the base," suggesting they are distinct components. The abstract similarly lists "a base and a plurality of pads extending from the base," reinforcing the idea that the pads are separate structures that protrude from the base, not a single plate welded onto it (’659 Patent, Abstract).
VI. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This declaratory judgment action appears to center on fundamental questions of claim scope and the application of that scope to the accused product designs.
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the phrase "plurality of pads extending from the base," as used in the context of a pump skid, be construed to read on a single, continuous rectangular plate that provides support for multiple pump feet?
- A second key issue will be one of geometric interpretation: Does the term "recessed area" in the context of a valve seat require a discrete, manufactured cavity for receiving an insert, as suggested by the patent's figures, or can it cover other surface geometries on the accused "Super Seat" product? The resolution of these claim construction questions will likely determine the outcome of the non-infringement claims.