DCT
4:23-cv-02570
Delmar Systems Inc v. Bardex Corp
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Delmar Systems, Inc. (Louisiana)
- Defendant: Bardex Corporation (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Breaud & Meyers
- Case Identification: 4:23-cv-02570, TXSD, 07/13/2023
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant conducts business within the Southern District of Texas at a physical location in Houston.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant improperly filed and obtained a patent on a mooring line tensioning methodology that was jointly developed, omitting a Plaintiff-employee as a co-inventor, and seeks correction of inventorship, co-ownership rights, and disgorgement of profits from Defendant's use of the patented technology.
- Technical Context: The dispute concerns technology for mooring and tensioning lines for large offshore structures, such as drilling platforms, a critical operation in the offshore energy industry.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint references a 2015 "Proprietary Information Non-Disclosure Agreement" and a 2018 "Memorandum of Understanding" between the parties, which were intended to protect the intellectual property of each party during a joint development effort. These agreements form the basis for several of the non-patent counts, including breach of contract and misappropriation.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2015-04-13 | Effective date of Proprietary Information Non-Disclosure Agreement |
| 2018-08-17 | U.S. Patent No. 10,676,160 Priority Date |
| 2018-09-12 | Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed by parties |
| 2018-10-26 | U.S. Patent No. 10,676,160 Filing Date |
| 2020-06-09 | U.S. Patent No. 10,676,160 Issue Date |
| 2023-07-13 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,676,160 - "Mooring and Tensioning Methods, Systems, and Apparatus" (issued Jun. 9, 2020)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes issues with conventional "in-line tensioners" used for mooring large floating vessels. It notes that these tensioners do not allow mooring chains to pass smoothly, instead causing a "yo-yo like" lifting and dropping action that creates uncontrolled movements and risks damage to the chain or the tensioner assembly itself (’160 Patent, col. 1:23-39).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method and system that avoids the problems of conventional in-line tensioners. The solution involves using a "messenger line" that is pre-reeved through a "fairlead stopper" on the floating vessel. This messenger line is used to pull the main mooring line into position. An anchor handling vessel (AHV) then applies tension to the mooring line by pulling on a separate "tensioning line" attached to a "tension coupler" located on the mooring line itself. This allows for a more controlled application of tension without the uncontrolled "yo-yo" motion (’160 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:43-63).
- Technical Importance: This approach suggests a method for tensioning heavy mooring lines that could enhance safety and control compared to prior art techniques, which is significant given the high loads and hazardous conditions involved in offshore mooring operations (’160 Patent, col. 1:35-39; col. 15:1-9).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted, but alleges use of the "apparatus and methods disclosed and/or claimed" in the patent (Compl. ¶12). Independent claims 1 and 14 appear to cover the core method.
- Independent Claim 1 (Method Claim):
- A method of mooring a floating vessel having a fairlead stopper coupled thereto, comprising:
- hauling in a mooring line that is anchored to a seafloor into and at least partially through the fairlead stopper by pulling a messenger line coupled with the mooring line toward an anchor handling vessel, wherein the mooring line is hauled in until a first tension is attained, and wherein the fairlead stopper secures a position of the mooring line to at least partially maintain the first tension; and
- while hauling in the mooring line, pulling a tensioning line toward the anchor handling vessel to apply tension thereto, wherein the tensioning line is coupled between the anchor handling vessel and a tension coupler that is positioned along the mooring line.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint does not identify a specific accused product or service by name. Instead, it alleges that Defendant "has marketed for and carried out mooring projects in which the mooring apparatus and methods disclosed and/or claimed in the ‘160 Patent were employed" (Compl. ¶12).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused instrumentalities are the methods and systems used by Bardex in its offshore mooring projects. The complaint alleges that these projects generate revenue and profits for Bardex through the use of the technology claimed in the ’160 Patent, which Delmar alleges it rightfully co-owns (Compl. ¶11-12). The complaint does not provide specific technical details about the operation of Bardex's mooring projects beyond the general allegation that they use the patented technology.
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not contain a detailed, element-by-element infringement analysis. The central patent law claim is for correction of inventorship under 35 U.S.C. § 256, which, if successful, would make Delmar a co-owner of the ’160 Patent (Compl. ¶13). The "infringement" allegation is predicated on this theory of co-ownership; Delmar claims it is entitled to profits from Bardex's use of the co-owned technology (Compl. ¶11-12). The complaint alleges that Bardex's "mooring projects" and associated "apparatus and/or methods" practice the claims of the ’160 Patent (Compl. ¶12). Below is a summary chart based on these general allegations as they relate to representative Claim 1.
U.S. Patent No. 10,676,160 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A method of mooring a floating vessel having a fairlead stopper coupled thereto... | Bardex's mooring projects which employed the apparatus and methods disclosed and/or claimed in the ’160 Patent. | ¶12 | col. 1:43-46 |
| hauling in a mooring line that is anchored to a seafloor into and at least partially through the fairlead stopper by pulling a messenger line coupled with the mooring line toward an anchor handling vessel... | Bardex's mooring projects which employed the apparatus and methods disclosed and/or claimed in the ’160 Patent. | ¶12 | col. 1:46-53 |
| wherein the mooring line is hauled in until a first tension is attained, and wherein the fairlead stopper secures a position of the mooring line to at least partially maintain the first tension... | Bardex's mooring projects which employed the apparatus and methods disclosed and/or claimed in the ’160 Patent. | ¶12 | col. 1:53-58 |
| while hauling in the mooring line, pulling a tensioning line toward the anchor handling vessel to apply tension thereto, wherein the tensioning line is coupled between the anchor handling vessel and a tension coupler that is positioned along the mooring line. | Bardex's mooring projects which employed the apparatus and methods disclosed and/or claimed in the ’160 Patent. | ¶12 | col. 1:59-63 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Factual Question (Inventorship): The primary dispute is not over claim scope or technical operation in a traditional infringement sense, but rather a factual and legal question of inventorship. The case will depend on evidence of whether Delmar's employee, Dillon Shuler, made a contribution to the "conception" of the subject matter of at least one claim in the ’160 Patent (Compl. ¶8, 11).
- Technical Question (Use): Assuming Delmar can establish co-inventorship, a secondary question is whether Bardex's accused "mooring projects" actually practice one or more claims of the ’160 Patent. The complaint's allegations of use are general and do not specify how Bardex's activities map to the claim elements (Compl. ¶12).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
While the primary dispute is inventorship, the construction of key terms would become central if the case proceeds to a detailed analysis of use or infringement.
The Term: "fairlead stopper"
Context and Importance: This is a core component of the claimed apparatus. Its structure and function, particularly its ability to be "pre-reeved with a messenger line" and to "secure a position of the mooring line" via latches, are essential to the method. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition could distinguish the invention from prior art mooring hardware.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims do not impose significant structural limitations beyond the functional requirements. Claim 1 only requires a "fairlead stopper" "coupled" to the vessel.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes specific embodiments, such as the BARLATCH™ Fairlead Stopper, and provides detailed figures (e.g., FIGS. 2A-2I) showing a particular configuration with a "fairlead housing 112," "latch housing 120," and "chainwheel 110" (’160 Patent, col. 4:10-11; col. 5:9-25). A defendant could argue these details limit the scope of the term.
The Term: "tension coupler"
Context and Importance: This term identifies the specific point on the mooring line where the external tensioning force is applied by the AHV. Its definition and placement are critical for distinguishing the claimed method from prior art "in-line tensioners."
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 1 simply requires a "tension coupler" that is "positioned along the mooring line" and can be coupled with a "tensioning line."
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification and figures show a specific "tri-plate connector" (FIG. 3) or a plate (713) with connection chains (719) as exemplary tension couplers (’160 Patent, col. 7:8-14; col. 13:1-17). The patent also describes its function as enabling a pull that is "perpendicular to, or at least not parallel to, the direction of extension of mooring line 701," which might be argued as a functional limitation (’160 Patent, col. 13:14-17).
VI. Other Allegations
The complaint does not plead separate counts for indirect or willful patent infringement. The central patent-related cause of action is for correction of inventorship under 35 U.S.C. § 256 (Compl. ¶13). The remaining counts are non-patent claims for tortious misconduct, fraud, breach of contract, and trade secret misappropriation.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This case appears to turn on questions of ownership and alleged misappropriation rather than a traditional patent infringement dispute over technology or claim scope. The central issues for the court will likely be:
- A core issue will be one of inventorship and ownership: Can Delmar provide sufficient evidence to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that its employee conceived of a portion of the invention as defined in at least one claim of the '160 Patent? The outcome of this question determines whether Delmar has any rights in the patent at all.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of causation and damages: If co-ownership is established, Delmar must then prove that Bardex's "mooring projects" practice the patented claims and provide a basis for the court to calculate and disgorge the profits attributable to the use of the technology, a complex accounting task.