DCT
2:24-cv-00152
Del Corp v. OSC Rentals LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Del Corp (Louisiana)
- Defendant: OSC Rentals, LLC (Texas)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Jones Walker LLP
- Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00152, S.D. Tex., 07/03/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as the Defendant resides in the district, maintains a regular and established place of business there, and has committed the alleged acts of infringement within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s vertical degassers, used in oil and gas operations, infringe a patent related to an apparatus for diffusing gas from a slurry recovered from a hydrocarbon well.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns "gas buster" devices used in the oil and gas industry to separate entrained gas from liquid slurry, a critical step in flowback and solids control operations.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the Defendant has been on notice of the asserted patent and its infringement since at least March 15, 2024, via a notice letter, which may form the basis for a willfulness claim.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2019-08-01 | ’425 Patent Priority Date (Filing) |
| 2021-11-16 | ’425 Patent Issue Date |
| 2024-03-15 | Date of Alleged Notice Letter to OSC |
| 2024-07-03 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,173,425 - “Vertical Gas Diffusing Device”
- Issued: November 16, 2021
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional gas diffusing devices (or "gas busters") as suffering from drawbacks, including the buildup of solids at the bottom of the device, which requires periodic manual intervention to dump, or alternatively, complex external setups involving augers to remove the solids. (’425 Patent, col. 1:31-46).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is an assembly featuring an "open-bottomed housing" designed to be partially submerged in a larger tank. (’425 Patent, Abstract). Slurry from a hydrocarbon well is piped into the housing, where entrained gas separates and is vented through a channel at the top, while the degassed slurry and solids simply fall through the open bottom into the tank, thereby eliminating the problem of solids accumulation within the device itself. (’425 Patent, col. 1:47-52).
- Technical Importance: This design purports to simplify the gas separation process and reduce operational complexity and "situations of human error" by obviating the need for an operator to manually dump collected solids. (’425 Patent, col. 1:50-52).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 1. (Compl. ¶10).
- The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
- An open-bottomed housing with a top, mid, and bottom portion, with the bottom portion having an opening to convey a second slurry out of the housing.
- One or more intake conduits extending through the mid-portion of the housing to convey a first slurry into the housing.
- A gas diffusing channel in the top-portion of the housing to convey diffused gas out of the housing.
- A dumping assembly at the mid-portion of the housing, comprising a port and a dump valve coupled to the port.
- The complaint notes that Plaintiff may identify additional infringed claims after discovery. (Compl. ¶16).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused products are identified as "vertical degassers" (the "Accused Degassers"). (Compl. ¶1).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the Accused Degassers are used for solids separation in oil and gas flowback operations, sometimes in conjunction with Plaintiff's own "Sandcat™ system." (Compl. ¶1). The complaint alleges that photographs attached as Exhibit B show an example of an Accused Degasser that embodies the patented invention. (Compl. ¶10). The complaint does not provide further technical details on the specific operation of the Accused Degassers beyond alleging that they meet all limitations of Claim 1. (Compl. ¶¶12-15).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’425 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| an open-bottomed housing having a top portion, a mid-portion, and a bottom portion, wherein the bottom portion includes an opening configured for conveying a second slurry from inside of the housing to outside of the housing | The complaint alleges the Accused Degassers include an open-bottomed housing with the claimed portions and an opening for conveying slurry, referencing photographs in an exhibit. | ¶12 | col. 2:58-66 |
| one or more intake conduits extending through the mid-portion of the housing, the one or more intake conduits being configured to receive the first slurry recovered from the hydrocarbon well... and to convey the first slurry to an inner portion... inside of the housing | The complaint alleges the Accused Degassers include one or more intake conduits that extend through the housing's mid-portion and are configured to receive and convey slurry as claimed. A photograph allegedly depicting this feature is referenced. | ¶13 | col. 4:31-36 |
| a gas diffusing channel formed in the housing and extending vertically through the top-portion of the housing, wherein the gas diffusing channel is configured to convey diffused gas from the first slurry from inside of the housing to outside of the housing | The complaint alleges the Accused Degassers include a gas diffusing channel formed in and extending vertically through the top-portion of the housing to convey gas as claimed, referencing an attached photograph. | ¶14 | col. 4:62-65 |
| a dumping assembly comprising: a port located at the mid-portion of the housing; and a dump valve coupled to the port at the mid-portion | The complaint alleges the Accused Degassers include a dumping assembly with a port and a coupled dump valve located at the mid-portion of the housing as claimed. This allegation is also supported by reference to a photograph in an exhibit. | ¶15 | col. 4:36-42 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the accused device's components fall within the scope of the claim terms. For instance, the patent specification describes the "dumping assembly" in a preferred embodiment as performing a specific function of skimming a layer of hydrocarbon fluid from the top of the liquid inside the housing (col. 5:25-39). The litigation may explore whether the term "dumping assembly" should be limited to a structure capable of performing this skimming function, or if it more broadly covers any valve assembly at the claimed location.
- Technical Questions: The complaint's infringement allegations are conclusory and rely on photographs in an exhibit. (Compl. ¶¶12-15). A key question for discovery will be to determine the precise structure and function of the Accused Degassers. For example, what evidence demonstrates that the accused device's "dump valve" and "port" are configured and operate as the "dumping assembly" required by the claim, as opposed to serving a different technical purpose?
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "dumping assembly"
Context and Importance: This term appears in Claim 1 as "a dumping assembly comprising: a port... and a dump valve...". Its construction is critical because while the Defendant’s device may have valves, the question will be whether they form a "dumping assembly" as understood in the patent. The outcome of this construction could be dispositive of infringement.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is straightforward, requiring only a "port" and a "dump valve" coupled to it at the "mid-portion." (’425 Patent, col. 8:28-30). This could support a construction not limited by specific functions described elsewhere.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a specific embodiment where the "dumping assembly" is used as a "skimmer-type device" to remove oil from an upper layer of fluid. (’425 Patent, col. 5:31-36). It also describes a specific structure including an "inner conduit" with an "upward facing hole." (’425 Patent, col. 4:52-58). A party could argue these details limit the scope of the term to an assembly with this specific skimming structure and function.
The Term: "open-bottomed housing"
Context and Importance: The "open-bottomed" nature of the housing is presented as a key innovation over prior art that accumulated solids. Practitioners may focus on this term because the degree to which the accused housing is "open" and how it handles solids will be a focal point of the technical comparison.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim requires "an open-bottomed housing" with "an opening configured for conveying a second slurry from inside... to outside." (’425 Patent, col. 8:10-14). This language may be argued to cover any housing that is not fully enclosed at the bottom and allows for the passage of slurry and solids.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's background criticizes prior art where solids "build up at the bottom," and the summary explains the invention addresses this by having "solids fall through the open bottom." (’425 Patent, col. 1:36-37, 1:48-50). The figures, such as Figure 4, depict a conical bottom (12) that funnels into a completely unobstructed opening (18). A defendant might argue that a housing with internal baffles, screens, or other partial obstructions near the bottom does not meet the "open-bottomed" limitation as taught by the patent.
VI. Other Allegations
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement, entitling Plaintiff to enhanced damages. (Compl. ¶21). The basis for this allegation is Defendant’s alleged knowledge of the ’425 Patent and its infringement "at least since receiving a notice letter from DEL dated March 15, 2024." (Compl. ¶18).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "dumping assembly," which is described in the specification with a specific oil-skimming function and structure, be construed broadly to cover any port-and-valve combination found on the accused device, or will it be narrowed to the specific embodiments disclosed?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical mapping: beyond the photographs referenced in the complaint, what evidence will emerge in discovery to demonstrate that the accused degasser's components possess the specific structures and perform the precise functions recited in the asserted claim, especially regarding the configuration of the "intake conduits" and the operation of the "dumping assembly"?