DCT

4:24-cv-00839

US Well Services LLC v. Liberty Energy Inc

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 4:24-cv-00839, S.D. Tex., 10/23/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Southern District of Texas based on Defendants' commission of infringing acts and maintenance of regular and established places of business within the district, including offices in Houston and manufacturing facilities in Magnolia.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "digiFrac" electric hydraulic fracturing systems infringe patents related to multi-plunger pump drive systems, automated fracturing control systems, and modular power distribution for oilfield equipment.
  • Technical Context: The technology domain is electric-powered hydraulic fracturing ("E-Frac"), which represents a significant operational and environmental shift from the industry's traditional reliance on diesel-powered equipment for oil and gas well stimulation.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant ST9 (later acquired by Defendant Liberty) entered into a Non-Disclosure Agreement with Plaintiff USWS in 2017 to evaluate a business relationship. Plaintiff alleges that during this period, it disclosed confidential and proprietary E-Frac technology that Defendants subsequently used to develop the accused "digiFrac" system. The complaint also notes that numerous patents belonging to Plaintiffs were cited during the prosecution of Defendants' own patents.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2012-01-01 USWS founded
2014-07-01 USWS successfully deploys Clean Fleet, its first all-electric hydraulic fracturing system
2017-01-01 ST9 founded and publicly launched
2017-05-25 ST9 and USWS enter into a Mutual Confidentiality and Nondisclosure Agreement (NDA)
2017-08-01 USWS and ST9 begin discussions regarding "Project FOaLT," a next-generation electric fracturing fleet
2017-10-25 U.S. Patent No. 10,655,435 Priority Date
2017-12-05 U.S. Patent No. 11,959,533 Priority Date
2018-01-01 Liberty acquires ST9 (on or around 2018) and begins developing digiFrac
2018-10-09 U.S. Patent No. 11,208,878 Priority Date
2020-03-13 USWS sends letter to Liberty alleging breach of the NDA
2020-05-19 U.S. Patent No. 10,655,435 Issued
2021-01-01 Liberty and ST9 launch digiFrac
2021-12-28 U.S. Patent No. 11,208,878 Issued
2022-01-01 USWS is purchased by ProFrac's parent company
2024-04-16 U.S. Patent No. 11,959,533 Issued
2025-10-23 Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,959,533 - "Multi-Plunger Pumps and Associated Drive Systems" (Issued April 16, 2024)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes how conventional diesel-powered hydraulic fracturing pumps, when operated at higher transmission gears to increase pump speed, can exceed the "critical speed" of the pump plungers. This heightened speed creates low-pressure vacuum bubbles that implode, causing cavitation damage to the pump's fluid end. (’533 Patent, col. 1:55-col. 2:10).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes replacing a single large diesel engine and conventional transmission with a plurality of smaller electric or hydraulic motors that power a single multi-plunger pump. The motors drive the pump through a planetary gear train, which allows for finer control over the pump's rotational speed. This configuration enables the system to maintain a high pump rate and efficiency while ensuring the pump speed remains at or below the critical plunger speed, thereby avoiding cavitation damage. (’533 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:51-60).
  • Technical Importance: This approach facilitates the transition from damage-prone diesel-powered fracturing systems to more durable and controllable electric-powered systems without sacrificing operational performance. (’533 Patent, col. 6:49-53).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶48).
  • Claim 1 of the ’533 Patent includes these essential elements:
    • A hydraulic fracturing system for fracturing a subterranean formation comprising:
    • a multi-plunger hydraulic fracturing pump configured to pump fluid, the pump comprising a pump crankshaft;
    • a plurality of motors positioned to power the multi-plunger hydraulic fracturing pump; and
    • a planetary gear train positioned to translate power from the plurality of motors to the pump crankshaft.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

U.S. Patent No. 10,655,435 - "Smart Fracturing System And Method" (Issued May 19, 2020)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent background explains that conventional hydraulic fracturing operations consist of multiple independent components (pumps, blenders, etc.) that are individually controlled by human operators. This reliance on manual intervention for diagnostics, data interpretation, and operational adjustments is described as inefficient and lacking central coordination. (’435 Patent, col. 1:29-39).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a "smart" or automated hydraulic fracturing system featuring a central control system. This system integrates a plurality of sensing devices across the fracturing fleet (e.g., on pumps, distribution systems, the wellhead) to measure operational parameters. A processing device receives and analyzes this data to generate automated control instructions, which are then sent to control devices to adjust the function of the components in real-time. (’435 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1).
  • Technical Importance: This technology enables a shift from disjointed, manually intensive fracturing operations to an integrated, automated, and remotely controllable system, which may improve operational efficiency, safety, and consistency. (’435 Patent, col. 6:8-20).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶52).
  • Claim 1 of the ’435 Patent includes these essential elements:
    • A hydraulic fracturing system comprising:
    • a plurality of pumps positioned at a wellsite to pressurize a fracturing fluid;
    • a distribution system fluidly coupled to receive and consolidate the fluid for injection into a wellhead; and
    • a control system, which itself includes:
      • a plurality of sensing devices to measure parameters of the pumps and distribution system;
      • one or more processing devices to receive, analyze, and generate control instructions based on the parameters; and
      • one or more control devices to receive the instructions and control aspects of the pumps or distribution system.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

U.S. Patent No. 11,208,878 - "Modular Switchgear System And Power Distribution For Electric Oilfield Equipment" (Issued December 28, 2021)

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the logistical difficulties of managing power distribution for an electric fracturing fleet, where numerous cables and separate equipment skids can create congestion and complexity at a well site. (’878 Patent, col. 1:43-50, col. 2:15-24). The proposed solution is a modular, integrated power distribution system housed on a single support structure (e.g., a trailer), which includes a transformer, variable frequency drive (VFD), and switchgear to create a compact and efficient power hub. (’878 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:35-49).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶56).
  • Accused Features: The infringement allegations target the "digiFrac" product line, suggesting that the integrated design of its trailer-mounted power and control systems practices the claimed invention. (Compl. ¶55).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentality is Defendants' "digiFrac" product line of electric hydraulic fracturing systems and services. (Compl. ¶¶47, 51, 55).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint describes "digiFrac" as a "fully electric frac system" that "utilizes ten smaller motors working in parallel to deliver the same total horsepower as a single large motor." (Compl. p. 11 visual). An included product diagram describes the system as having "[b]espoke gear reducer transmissions," "[d]ual VFDs for rectifying and modulating power to the motors," and an "[i]ntelligent control via Telematics Suite for ultra-fine control, remote capability, and AI integration." (Compl. ¶39; p. 12 visual). The complaint alleges Defendants market the "digiFrac" system as "the industry's first purpose-built fully integrated electric frac pump" and that it was launched in 2021. (Compl. ¶¶37-38).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 11,959,533 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A hydraulic fracturing system...comprising: a multi-plunger hydraulic fracturing pump...comprising a pump crankshaft; The "digiFrac" system is a hydraulic fracturing system that includes an electric frac pump. ¶38 col. 2:45-50
a plurality of motors positioned to power the multi-plunger hydraulic fracturing pump; The "digiFrac" pump "utilizes ten smaller motors working in parallel." A product image shows these motors arranged to power the pump. p. 11 visual col. 2:53-56
and a planetary gear train positioned to translate power from the plurality of motors to the pump crankshaft... The "digiFrac" system is alleged to contain "[b]espoke gear reducer transmissions for maximum efficiency." ¶39; p. 12 visual col. 2:56-60

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the accused "[b]espoke gear reducer transmissions" fall within the scope of the claim term "planetary gear train." The complaint provides marketing-level descriptions of the accused transmission but does not detail its specific mechanical structure, raising the question of whether it employs the sun-planet-ring gear configuration often associated with the term.
  • Technical Questions: The patent teaches using the drive system to limit pump speed to avoid cavitation. The complaint describes the "digiFrac" design as offering "increased flexibility to minimize the inrush current at the startup." (Compl. p. 11 visual). This raises the question of whether the accused system's motor and gear configuration is used to perform the claimed function of limiting maximum operational speed, or if its purpose is limited to managing startup currents, which may not align with the problem solved by the patent.

U.S. Patent No. 10,655,435 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A hydraulic fracturing system comprising: a plurality of pumps...; a distribution system...; The "digiFrac" system is a hydraulic fracturing system, which by its nature comprises pumps and a means to distribute the pressurized fluid to a wellhead. ¶38 col. 3:10-18
and a control system, which includes: a plurality of sensing devices configured to measure one or more parameters...; The "digiFrac" system includes an "[i]ntelligent control via Telematics Suite," which suggests the presence of sensors to gather data for control purposes. ¶39; p. 12 visual col. 4:51-55
one or more processing device configured to receive and analyze...and generate control instructions...; and one or more control device...to...control one or more aspects of the plurality of pumps... The "Telematics Suite" is described as providing "ultra-fine control, remote capability, and AI integration," which corresponds to the claimed functions of processing data and generating automated control actions. ¶39; p. 12 visual col. 4:55-65

Identified Points of Contention

  • Technical Questions: The complaint relies on high-level marketing language such as "Intelligent control" and "AI integration." A key factual question will be what specific parameters the accused "digiFrac" system actually measures, what analysis its "Telematics Suite" performs, and what automated control actions it executes. The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of these specific functions.
  • Scope Questions: The asserted claim recites a "control system" comprising three distinct components: "sensing devices," a "processing device," and a "control device." The infringement analysis may turn on whether the accused "Telematics Suite" can be mapped onto these separate limitations or if it is a single, integrated unit that does not meet the claim's multipart structure.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

U.S. Patent No. 11,959,533

  • The Term: "planetary gear train"
  • Context and Importance: This term defines the core mechanical linkage between the multiple motors and the single pump. The infringement case for the ’533 Patent may depend entirely on whether the accused "bespoke gear reducer transmissions" are construed as a "planetary gear train."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the function of the gear train as enabling multiple motors to "provide power to a pump crankshaft" and "translate power from the plurality of motors into a desired pump rate." (’533 Patent, col. 8:17-23). A party could argue that any gear system performing this multi-input to single-output power translation function meets the claim's purpose.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 1 and the accompanying description detail a specific arrangement including a "main planetary gear 125," a "sun gear 115," and "three planetary gears 120" that engage a "final drive gear 110." (’533 Patent, col. 7:14-23). This explicit embodiment may be used to argue for a narrower construction limited to gear systems with this specific sun-planet-ring topology.

U.S. Patent No. 10,655,435

  • The Term: "control system"
  • Context and Importance: Claim 1 defines this term with a "comprising" list of sub-elements: sensing devices, a processing device, and a control device. Practitioners may focus on this term because the accused functionality is described as an integrated "Telematics Suite," raising the question of whether a single product can satisfy three distinct claim limitations.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's summary describes the invention as a "control system" that performs the overall functions of measuring, analyzing, and controlling. (’435 Patent, col. 2:46-61). This may support an argument that an integrated suite that performs all these functions satisfies the limitation, regardless of its physical architecture.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language itself separates the "plurality of sensing devices," "one or more processing device," and "one or more control device" into distinct clauses. A party may argue this structure requires functionally or structurally separate components, and that a single, monolithic "suite" cannot be all three simultaneously.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes allegations of induced and contributory infringement for all asserted patents, stating that Defendants act "by intending that others make, use, import into, offer for sale, or sell" the infringing products and methods. (Compl. ¶¶46, 50, 54). The primary factual basis for intent appears to be the sale and marketing of the "digiFrac" system to customers for use in hydraulic fracturing.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain a separate count for willful infringement, but the factual allegations suggest a basis for such a claim. The allegations of willfulness appear to be based on pre-suit knowledge derived from two sources: first, the prior business relationship and NDA between USWS and ST9, during which confidential technology was allegedly disclosed (Compl. ¶¶26-37); and second, the allegation that Defendants were aware of Plaintiffs' patent portfolio, as evidenced by citations to Plaintiffs' patents during the prosecution of Defendants' own patent applications (Compl. ¶20).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "planetary gear train" in the ’533 Patent, which is illustrated with a specific sun-and-planet gear structure, be construed to cover the accused product's "bespoke gear reducer transmissions," for which the complaint provides no structural details?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of functional mapping: does the accused "digiFrac" product’s "Intelligent control via Telematics Suite" perform the specific, multi-part functions of automated sensing, analysis, and control as required by the claims of the ’435 Patent, or is this marketing language for a more general monitoring system that falls short of the claimed invention?
  • A central narrative question, intertwined with potential willfulness claims, will be the degree to which allegations of a breached NDA and misappropriation of confidential information influence the interpretation of patent scope and infringement, particularly on the issue of intent.