DCT
4:18-cv-02533
Cameron Intl Corp v. Nitro Fluids LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Cameron International Corporation (Texas)
- Defendant: Nitro Fluids L.L.C. (Texas)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Slayden Grubert Beard PLLC
- Case Identification: 4:18-cv-02533, S.D. Tex., 09/07/2018
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Southern District of Texas because Defendant is a Texas limited liability company with its headquarters and a regular and established place of business within the district, and has allegedly committed acts of patent infringement in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s fracturing fluid delivery systems infringe four U.S. patents related to adjustable and modular fracturing equipment used in oil and gas extraction.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves high-pressure fluid handling systems that connect a fracturing manifold to a fracturing tree at a wellsite, a critical setup for hydraulic fracturing operations.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant was on notice of the ’450 and ’430 patents as of March 22, 2017. Subsequent to the filing of the complaint, U.S. Patent No. 9,932,800 was the subject of an Inter Partes Review (IPR), which resulted in the cancellation of several claims, including independent claim 1, which the complaint originally relied upon. U.S. Patent No. 9,518,430 is subject to a terminal disclaimer.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2011-09-23 | Priority Date for ’450, ’430, and ’800 Patents |
| 2014-10-27 | Priority Date for ’190 Patent |
| 2015-06-30 | Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,068,450 (’450 Patent) |
| 2016-12-13 | Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,518,430 (’430 Patent) |
| 2017-03-22 | Alleged pre-suit notice of ’450 and ’430 Patents |
| 2018-02-27 | Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,903,190 (’190 Patent) |
| 2018-04-03 | Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,932,800 (’800 Patent) |
| 2018-09-07 | Amended Complaint Filing Date |
| 2019-03-20 | Inter Partes Review (IPR2019-00852) filed for ’800 Patent |
| 2022-09-23 | IPR Certificate issued for ’800 Patent |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,068,450 - "Adjustable Fracturing System," issued June 30, 2015
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section explains that fracturing manifolds and their associated fracturing trees are typically large, heavy, and installed at fixed locations, which makes adjusting the fluid connections between them difficult (ʼ450 Patent, col. 1:40-45).
- The Patented Solution: The invention provides an adjustable system using "adjustment joints," such as fracturing heads or rotatable pipes, that allow an operator to vary the dimensions and orientation of the fluid conduit connecting the manifold and the tree (ʼ450 Patent, col. 2:56-65). As illustrated in Figure 3, these joints provide multiple degrees of freedom (e.g., extension/retraction and rotation) to simplify the alignment and coupling process (ʼ450 Patent, FIG. 3; col. 4:51-57).
- Technical Importance: This adjustability is intended to streamline the on-site rig-up process for high-pressure fracturing operations, allowing for easier and more efficient connection of large-bore fluid lines by compensating for unexpected alignment issues between heavy equipment (ʼ450 Patent, col. 2:1-4).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent method claim 8 (Compl. ¶17).
- Essential elements of claim 8 include:
- positioning a fluid conduit between a fracturing manifold and a fracturing tree;
- wherein positioning includes turning a first pipe with respect to a second pipe to extend or retract the fluid conduit;
- wherein the pipes are connected via an elbow block, and the turning includes rotating the elbow block about an end of the first pipe; and
- connecting the fluid conduit between the manifold and tree.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims, including claims 1-3 and 7, 9, and 10 (Compl. ¶15).
U.S. Patent No. 9,518,430 - "Adjustable Fracturing System," issued December 13, 2016
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same technical challenge as the ’450 Patent: the difficulty of aligning and connecting large, heavy, and fixed fracturing equipment at a wellsite (ʼ430 Patent, col. 1:40-45).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is an adjustable fracturing system where the fluid conduit includes "multiple swivel connections" that provide "multiple rotational degrees of freedom" (ʼ430 Patent, cl. 1:63-66). This design feature, illustrated in concepts like the swivel ring in Figure 12, allows operators to rotate and orient pipe joints to facilitate a precise connection between the fracturing manifold and the fracturing tree (ʼ430 Patent, FIG. 12; col. 7:36-41).
- Technical Importance: By enabling multiple rotational degrees of freedom, the invention provides enhanced flexibility for aligning high-pressure conduits, which can reduce rig-up time and accommodate variations in equipment placement (ʼ430 Patent, col. 2:1-6).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent system claim 1 (Compl. ¶22).
- Essential elements of claim 1 include:
- a fracturing manifold;
- a fracturing tree;
- an adjustable fluid conduit coupled between them that allows an operator to vary a dimension;
- the fluid conduit includes a plurality of pipe joints; and
- the pipe joints include multiple swivel connections enabling multiple rotational degrees of freedom.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims, including claims 2-4 and 8-13 (Compl. ¶21).
Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,903,190
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,903,190, "Modular Fracturing System," issued February 27, 2018 (Compl. ¶7).
- Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a modular fracturing system architecture designed to simplify fluid routing. The invention focuses on a dedicated skid apparatus coupled to a fracturing manifold and to "only one fracturing tree," featuring a "single outlet" for the fluid conduit. This one-to-one modular design contrasts with larger, shared systems and is intended to enable more compact, efficient, and easily deployable wellsite configurations ('190 Patent, Abstract; cl. 1).
- Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶27).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant's system uses a dedicated skid apparatus with a single outlet connected via a single fluid conduit to only one fracturing tree, mirroring the configuration claimed in the patent (Compl. ¶27).
Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,932,800
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,932,800, "Fracturing Manifold Systems and Methods," issued April 3, 2018 (Compl. ¶8).
- Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a fracturing system where each fracturing tree is connected to the manifold by "one and only one rigid fluid pathway." A key aspect is that this dedicated rigid pathway is not coupled to the manifold to provide fluid to any other fracturing tree. This architecture ensures a non-shared, dedicated fluid line for each well, which can simplify flow control and system integrity ('800 Patent, Abstract; cl. 1).
- Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶32). As noted, this claim was subsequently cancelled in an IPR proceeding (US 9,932,800 K1).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the accused system provides a dedicated, rigid fluid conduit from the manifold to each individual fracturing tree, with each pathway being exclusive to its respective tree (Compl. ¶32).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentality is identified as "Nitro's fracturing fluid delivery system" or the "Accused System/Method" (Compl. ¶15).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the accused product as a system used to deliver fracturing fluid from a manifold to a fracturing tree at oil and gas well sites (Compl. ¶15). A photograph depicting the accused fluid conduit positioned between a fracturing manifold and a fracturing tree illustrates the overall arrangement (Compl. p. 6).
- Technically, the system is alleged to be constructed from unitary spools with integral flanges that are bolted to other components (Compl. ¶16). A photograph showing the bolted connection of a flanged pipe component to a block in the accused system provides a detail of this assembly method (Compl. p. 5, Picture D).
- The system is alleged to be adjustable, with fluid conduits that can be extended or retracted by turning pipe segments relative to one another via elbow blocks and swivel-type connections, thereby providing rotational degrees of freedom for alignment (Compl. ¶17, ¶22).
- The complaint alleges the Accused System/Method has been provided to major energy companies, including Occidental Petroleum Corporation and ConocoPhillips, for use in the Delaware Basin and Eagle Ford Shale fields (Compl. ¶18-19, ¶23-24).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
U.S. Patent No. 9,068,450 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 8) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A method comprising: positioning a fluid conduit between a fracturing manifold and a fracturing tree, | Nitro's method involves positioning its fluid delivery system between a fracturing manifold and a fracturing tree at a well site. | ¶17 | col. 9:26-28 |
| wherein positioning the fluid conduit includes turning a first pipe of the fluid conduit with respect to a second pipe of the fluid conduit to extend or retract the fluid conduit between the fracturing manifold and the fracturing tree, | The complaint alleges Nitro's method includes rotating pipe sections relative to each other to adjust the length of the fluid conduit. | ¶17 | col. 9:7-10 |
| wherein the first and second pipes are connected to one another via an elbow block and turning the first pipe with respect to the second pipe includes rotating the elbow block about an end of the first pipe; and | The complaint shows photographs of elbow blocks connecting pipes and alleges that these blocks are rotated to facilitate adjustment. | ¶17 | col. 9:11-15 |
| connecting the fluid conduit between the fracturing manifold and the fracturing tree. | Nitro's method includes bolting the fluid conduit in place to connect the manifold and the tree once it is properly positioned. | ¶17 | col. 9:16-18 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Question: The complaint's allegations rely on photographs of the accused system's exterior. A central factual question will be whether the internal mechanism of the accused adjustment joints operates by "turning a first pipe" and "rotating the elbow block" as specifically required by the claim, or if it achieves adjustment through a mechanically distinct, non-infringing method.
- Scope Question: The infringement analysis may turn on the construction of the action-oriented term "turning." A dispute may arise over whether any rotational adjustment meets this limitation or if it is restricted to the specific kinematics described in the patent's embodiments.
U.S. Patent No. 9,518,430 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a fracturing manifold; | The accused system includes a fracturing manifold. A photograph showing the accused fracturing manifold is provided. | ¶22 | col. 3:15-16 |
| a fracturing tree; and | The accused system includes and connects to a fracturing tree. | ¶22 | col. 3:9-10 |
| a fluid conduit coupled between the fracturing manifold and fracturing tree... | The accused system comprises a fluid conduit that is coupled between the manifold and tree. | ¶22 | col. 4:52-54 |
| wherein the fluid conduit is an adjustable fluid conduit that allows an operator to vary a dimension... to facilitate coupling... | The accused fluid conduit is alleged to be adjustable in dimension to ease the process of connecting it between the manifold and the tree. | ¶22 | col. 4:55-60 |
| the fluid conduit includes a plurality of pipe joints coupled to one another, and | Photographs in the complaint depict the accused fluid conduit as being composed of multiple pipe segments joined together. | ¶22 | col. 8:31-32 |
| the plurality of pipe joints include multiple swivel connections that enable multiple rotational degrees of freedom in aligning the fluid conduit... | The complaint alleges the joints in the accused system are "swivel connections" that provide rotational freedom for alignment, supported by photos. | ¶22 | col. 8:34-37 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Question: A key issue will be defining a "swivel connection." The court will need to determine if the term requires a specific mechanical structure (e.g., a swivel ring as shown in an embodiment) or if it can be construed more broadly to cover any joint that permits rotation.
- Technical Question: Does the accused system's set of joints, taken together, actually provide "multiple rotational degrees of freedom" as required? This will be an evidentiary question regarding the actual range and nature of motion afforded by the accused product's design.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Term: "turning a first pipe ... with respect to a second pipe" (’450 Patent, cl. 8)
- Context and Importance: This phrase defines the specific manipulative step required to practice the claimed method. The infringement determination will depend on whether the actions performed with the accused system meet this definition. Practitioners may focus on this term because it links the method claim to a specific physical action that must be proven.
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification describes the invention’s goal more generally as providing "at least one degree of freedom in aligning a fluid connection" (’450 Patent, col. 2:59-60), which could support a construction that is not overly rigid about the precise nature of the "turning."
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language itself is highly specific. The specification's description of rotating pipes connected via elbow blocks (’450 Patent, col. 9:7-15) and the depiction in Figure 11 could be cited to argue that the term is limited to the specific rotational mechanism shown.
Term: "multiple swivel connections" (’430 Patent, cl. 1)
- Context and Importance: This structural limitation is the core of the claimed invention's adjustability. Whether the joints of the accused system qualify as "swivel connections" is central to the infringement case. Practitioners may focus on this term as it is a potential point of non-infringement if the accused joints are mechanically different.
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim links the term to the function of enabling "multiple rotational degrees of freedom" (’430 Patent, cl. 1), suggesting that any joint achieving that function could be considered a "swivel connection."
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses a specific embodiment of a swivel connection comprising a "swivel ring" (176) that receives a flange (182), allowing the pipe to rotate (’430 Patent, col. 7:52-59; FIG. 12). This embodiment could be used to argue for a narrower construction limited to similar mechanical arrangements.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges infringement of method claim 8 of the ’450 Patent, which involves steps of "positioning" and "connecting" (Compl. ¶17). While not explicitly pleaded as a separate count, the allegation that Defendant "provided" the accused system to third-party customers like Occidental and ConocoPhillips raises the question of induced infringement, as these customers would be the ones performing the claimed method steps (Compl. ¶18-19).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint includes a count for willful infringement of the ’450 and ’430 Patents (Compl. ¶35). This allegation is based on alleged pre-suit notice, with the complaint asserting that Defendant has had knowledge of these two patents and the infringement allegations since "at least March 22, 2017" (Compl. ¶38). The claim is further supported by allegations that Defendant "copied" the design of Plaintiff's own MONOLINE™ system (Compl. ¶37).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of functional operation versus visual appearance: The complaint's infringement theory rests heavily on the visual similarity between the accused system and the patented inventions. A key evidentiary question will be whether the accused system achieves adjustability through the specific mechanical actions and structures recited in the claims (e.g., "turning" a pipe, using "swivel connections"), or if it employs a different, non-infringing design that merely appears similar.
- The case will also turn on a question of claim construction and scope: The definitions of key terms like "turning," "rotating the elbow block," and "swivel connection" will be critical. The degree to which these terms are construed narrowly based on specific embodiments versus broadly based on overall function will likely dictate the outcome of the infringement analysis for the ’450 and ’430 patents.
- A significant procedural and substantive question will be the impact of the post-filing IPR on the ’800 Patent: With independent claim 1—the primary basis for the infringement allegation in the complaint—now cancelled, the plaintiff's path forward on this patent is unclear. The viability of the infringement claim for the '800 patent will depend on whether the plaintiff can pivot to assert surviving dependent claims and provide evidence that the accused system meets their additional, narrower limitations.