DCT

4:09-cv-01827

WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 4:09-cv-01827, S.D. Tex., 03/14/2011
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendants' presence, systematic and continuous contacts, and regular sales of products and services within the Southern District of Texas.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's marine seismic survey services, which use towed streamer arrays, infringe five U.S. patents related to systems for actively controlling the position and geometry of those arrays.
  • Technical Context: The technology involves systems for precisely steering long cables of seismic sensors (streamers) towed by ships, which is critical for acquiring high-quality, repeatable 3D and 4D geological data for oil and gas exploration.
  • Key Procedural History: This filing is an amended complaint. It notes a prior court ruling on March 2, 2011, which found that certain alleged acts of direct infringement occurring in the Chukchi Sea were outside the territory of the United States and thus not actionable under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). Plaintiff notes its disagreement with this ruling and reserves its right to appeal.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1998-10-01 Earliest Priority Date for ’017, ’607, ’967, and ’520 Patents
2001-06-15 Priority Date for ’038 Patent
2004-02-10 ’038 Patent Issued
2005-08-23 ’017 Patent Issued
2006-07-25 ’607 Patent Issued
2007-01-16 ’967 Patent Issued
2007-11-13 ’520 Patent Issued
2010-07-15 Alleged Start of 2009 Planned Marine Seismic Survey
2010-10-01 Alleged Start of 2010 Planned Marine Seismic Survey
2011-03-14 Amended Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,691,038 - "Active Separation Tracking And Positioning System For Towed Seismic Arrays," issued February 10, 2004

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes that prior art systems for towing marine seismic streamer arrays have limited ability to precisely control the position and geometry of the array, making it difficult to conduct repeatable surveys over time, which is necessary for four-dimensional (time-lapse) seismic data acquisition (’038 Patent, col. 2:2-24).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes an active control system that places "active streamer positioning devices" (ASPDs) along the individual streamers in an array. A "master controller" tracks the three-dimensional position of streamer elements and issues commands to the ASPDs to adjust their horizontal and vertical positions, allowing the system to maintain a desired array geometry despite environmental factors like ocean currents (’038 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:1-14; Fig. 1).
  • Technical Importance: This approach allows for actively managing the shape of a seismic array during a survey, which can improve data quality, enable consistent and repeatable surveys for 4D analysis, and potentially compensate for equipment failures in real time (’038 Patent, col. 4:1-14).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of the patent generally but does not specify claims (Compl. ¶35). Independent claim 1 is representative of the system.
  • Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • a towing vessel for towing a seismic array;
    • an array comprising a plurality of seismic streamers;
    • an active streamer positioning device (ASPD) attached to at least one seismic streamer for positioning the seismic streamer relative to other seismic streamers within the array; and
    • a master controller for issuing positioning commands to each ASPD to adjust a vertical and horizontal position of a first streamer relative to a second streamer within the array for maintaining a specified array geometry.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but makes general allegations of infringement of the patent as a whole.

U.S. Patent No. 6,932,017 - "Control System For Positioning Of Marine Seismic Streamers," issued August 23, 2005

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies that horizontal out-of-position conditions in seismic surveys reduce efficiency and lead to costly "in-fill shooting." It further notes that existing control systems for positioning devices ("birds") are often slow or require significant manual input, making it difficult to regulate the positions of large, multi-streamer arrays closely (’017 Patent, col. 1:47-col. 2:18).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent discloses a method for controlling a streamer positioning device that has a wing and a motor. The method involves obtaining an estimated velocity of the device, using that velocity to calculate a desired change in the wing's orientation, and then actuating the motor to make that change. This creates a more deterministic and responsive control system compared to simple feedback loops (’017 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:50-60).
  • Technical Importance: By using the device's velocity as a key input for control calculations, the system can more accurately and rapidly compute the required steering forces, leading to better control, reduced streamer position errors, and less noise in the seismic data (’017 Patent, col. 2:46-49).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of the patent generally but does not specify claims (Compl. ¶41). Independent claim 1 is representative of the method.
  • Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • obtaining a predicted position of the streamer positioning devices;
    • obtaining an estimated velocity of the streamer positioning devices;
    • for at least some of the streamer positioning devices, calculating desired changes in the orientation of their wings using said predicted position and said estimated velocity; and
    • actuating the wing motors to produce said desired changes in wing orientation.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but makes general allegations of infringement of the patent as a whole.

U.S. Patent No. 7,080,607 - "Seismic Data Acquisiton Equipment Control System," issued July 25, 2006

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, related to the ’017 Patent, describes a control system for positioning devices on marine seismic streamers. The system estimates the velocity of the positioning devices and uses this information to calculate and actuate changes to the orientation of their wings, thereby steering the streamers to maintain a desired path or formation.
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint makes general infringement allegations (Compl. ¶47). Independent claim 1 is representative.
  • Accused Features: Fugro's services and systems for steerable streamers, including those incorporating DigiFIN and ORCA software, are accused of infringing (Compl. ¶47).

U.S. Patent No. 7,162,967 - "Control System For Positioning Of Marine Seismic Streamers," issued January 16, 2007

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, also related to the ’017 Patent, discloses a control system for steerable seismic streamers that adjusts a positioning device's wing using location information transmitted from a global control system. The local control system calculates a desired force and adjusts the wing to achieve it, enabling responsive steering.
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint makes general infringement allegations (Compl. ¶53). Independent claim 1 is representative.
  • Accused Features: Fugro's services and systems for steerable streamers, including those incorporating DigiFIN and ORCA software, are accused of infringing (Compl. ¶53).

U.S. Patent No. 7,293,520 - "Control System For Positioning Of A Marine Seismic Streamers," issued November 13, 2007

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, also in the same family, describes a control system for streamer positioning devices that can operate in multiple control modes. These include a "feather angle mode" to maintain a straight-line offset from the vessel's path and a "turn control mode" used to maneuver the array during line changes.
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint makes general infringement allegations (Compl. ¶59). Independent claim 1 is representative.
  • Accused Features: Fugro's services and systems for steerable streamers, including those incorporating DigiFIN and ORCA software, are accused of infringing (Compl. ¶59).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are marine seismic data acquisition services performed by the Fugro entities, as well as the products and systems used to perform those services (Compl. ¶¶35, 41, 47, 53, 59).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that Fugro conducts marine towed streamer surveys using equipment that includes ION Geophysical Corporation's "DigiFIN" and "Compass Birds" or "DigiBIRD" positioning devices, along with "Orca" command and control software (Compl. ¶¶23, 32, 72). These components are allegedly used to achieve "[s]treamer control" and "[s]treamer positioning" during geophysical data acquisition activities, such as those conducted for Statoil in the Chukchi Sea and in the Gulf of Mexico (Compl. ¶¶25, 32, 65-66). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint provides general allegations of infringement without detailed claim charts. The following tables summarize the likely infringement theories based on the complaint's allegations and the patent claims.

'038 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
an array comprising a plurality of seismic streamers Fugro's services include towing an "array of airgun and hydrophone streamers for data acquisition." ¶28 col. 3:5-6
an active streamer positioning device (ASPD) attached to at least one seismic streamer for positioning the seismic streamer Fugro's surveys allegedly use ION's "DigiFIN" and "Compass Bird or DigiBIRD" devices for streamer control and positioning. ¶¶32, 35 col. 3:1-5
a master controller for issuing positioning commands to each ASPD... for maintaining a specified array geometry Fugro's surveys allegedly use "Orca command and control software" to achieve "streamer control" and "streamer positioning." ¶¶32, 35 col. 3:55-59

'017 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
obtaining an estimated velocity of the streamer positioning devices The accused control system (e.g., Orca software) allegedly controls positioning devices (e.g., DigiFIN), which would require an estimation of device velocity to calculate steering forces. ¶¶32, 41 col. 6:46-54
calculating desired changes in the orientation of their wings using said... estimated velocity The Orca software allegedly issues commands to the positioning devices to achieve streamer control, which corresponds to calculating desired wing orientation changes. ¶¶32, 41 col. 5:56-65
actuating the wing motors to produce said desired changes in wing orientation The DigiFIN and DigiBIRD devices, which have steerable wings, are allegedly used to position the streamers, thereby actuating their motors in response to commands. ¶¶32, 41 col. 5:30-34
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Questions: The complaint's allegations are general. A central question will be whether discovery reveals that the accused ION/Orca system operates in the specific manner claimed. For the ’038 Patent, does the Orca software function as a "master controller" to maintain a "specified array geometry" as claimed? For the ’017 Patent and its family, does the control algorithm actually use "estimated velocity" as a primary input for calculating wing orientation changes, or does it rely on a different control logic, such as one based purely on positional error?
    • Scope Questions: A key legal dispute, noted in the complaint itself, concerns extraterritoriality (Compl. ¶35, n.1). The case may raise the question of whether supplying components (e.g., DigiFIN) from the U.S. and/or operating control software (e.g., Orca) from the U.S. to direct a survey in international waters constitutes infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) or § 271(f).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • Term ('038 Patent): "master controller"

    • Context and Importance: The existence of a "master controller" is a required element of the claimed system. The definition of this term is critical to determining whether the accused Orca software, potentially part of a distributed system, meets this limitation. Practitioners may focus on whether this term requires a single, centralized hardware or software entity or if it can read on a more diffuse, multi-component control architecture.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the control system can be distributed, stating it "may be distributed between a master controller 26 located remotely... and a group of one or more separate controllers 18 built into one or more ASPDs" (’038 Patent, col. 7:13-19). This could support a reading that "master controller" refers to the high-level control function, wherever it resides.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim requires the controller to issue commands "for maintaining a specified array geometry," and figures depict a single "master controller 26" block (’038 Patent, Fig. 2). This could support an argument that the term implies a specific, consolidated functional role that a distributed system might not possess.

  • Term ('017 Patent): "calculating desired changes in the orientation of their wings using said... estimated velocity"

    • Context and Importance: This limitation defines the core of the inventive method. The infringement analysis for the ’017 patent family will turn on whether the accused control system uses "estimated velocity" as an input to its control algorithm as required, or if it uses a different methodology.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent explains that this method is an improvement over simple feedback loops, suggesting that any deterministic calculation incorporating velocity would fall within the scope. The specification states that velocity can be derived from multiple sources, including vessel speed and local flowmeters (’017 Patent, col. 4:48-64).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language explicitly links the calculation of wing changes to the use of the estimated velocity. A defendant could argue that its system primarily uses position error to calculate changes, with velocity being merely a secondary or implicit factor, and therefore does not "use" velocity in the manner claimed.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement and contributory infringement for all five patents, stating Fugro's actions include "inducing and/or contributing to such conduct" (e.g., Compl. ¶35). It also pleads infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f) for supplying components from the United States. The complaint does not, however, allege specific facts to support the knowledge and intent elements required for inducement, such as referencing user manuals or specific instructions.
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all five patents. The stated basis is that "upon information and belief, Fugro has been aware of the [asserted] patent at all relevant times" (e.g., Compl. ¶38). The complaint does not provide specific facts supporting this allegation of pre-suit knowledge.

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

  1. A central issue will be one of evidentiary proof and functional operation: The complaint lacks specific technical mappings. The case will likely depend heavily on discovery to determine if the accused Fugro services, using the ION and Orca systems, perform the exact functions recited in the independent claims. Does the accused system’s control logic rely on "estimated velocity" as a direct input for steering calculations (’017 family patents), and does it employ a "master controller" to maintain a "specified array geometry" (’038 Patent)?

  2. A key legal question will be the scope of extraterritorial infringement: As foreshadowed by a prior court ruling mentioned in the complaint, the case will test the boundaries of U.S. patent law for services performed on the high seas. The court will have to determine whether supplying system components from the U.S. and/or exercising command and control from a U.S. location for a foreign survey constitutes an infringing "use," "sale," or "supply" under 35 U.S.C. § 271.