DCT
4:25-cv-04373
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; Law Office of Jesse D. Lambert, LLC
- Case Identification: 4:25-cv-04373, S.D. Tex., 09/15/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Southern District of Texas because Defendant does business at a physical address in Houston, Texas.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges its employee was improperly omitted as an inventor on Defendant’s patent for offshore mooring technology, and seeks correction of inventorship, a declaration of co-ownership, and damages for Defendant's use of the patented methods.
- Technical Context: The dispute concerns methods and systems for mooring large offshore floating structures, such as oil platforms, a critical technology in the offshore energy sector.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges the parties had a pre-existing business relationship governed by a 2015 Non-Disclosure Agreement and a 2018 Memorandum of Understanding to jointly develop and propose mooring line tensioning systems. Plaintiff alleges that during this collaboration, Defendant filed for the patent-in-suit incorporating intellectual property from a Delmar employee without naming that employee as an inventor.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2015-04-13 | Proprietary Information Non-Disclosure Agreement effective date |
| 2018-07-02 | Date of email from Bardex to Delmar's Dillon Shuler referenced in complaint |
| 2018-08-17 | ’160 Patent earliest priority date (Provisional App. 62/765,155) |
| 2018-09-12 | Memorandum of Understanding execution date |
| 2020-06-09 | ’160 Patent issue date |
| 2025-09-15 | 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 section identifies a problem with conventional "in-line tensioners" used for mooring large vessels. These tensioners can exhibit a jerky, "yo-yo like" action when pulling on a mooring chain, which creates uncontrolled movements and risks damaging the chain or the tensioning equipment. (’160 Patent, col. 1:22-34).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method that avoids these issues by using a fairlead stopper on the moored vessel in conjunction with an Anchor Handling Vessel (AHV). The method involves the AHV pulling on the mooring line via both a "messenger line" (reeved through the fairlead stopper) and a separate "tensioning line" attached to a mid-line "tension coupler." This dual-pull system allows for controlled hauling and tensioning without the need for on-vessel chain jacks or the problematic "yo-yo" action of prior art in-line tensioners. (’160 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:1-4).
- Technical Importance: This approach aims to provide a safer and more precisely controlled method for securing high-value offshore assets, potentially reducing equipment complexity and operational risks. (’160 Patent, col. 1:35-40).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint alleges use of "methods disclosed and/or claimed" in the patent without specifying claims. (Compl. ¶14). Independent claim 1 is representative of the core method.
- Independent Claim 1 requires, in summary:
- Hauling in a mooring line through a fairlead stopper by pulling a coupled messenger line toward an anchor handling vessel until a first tension is attained and secured by the stopper.
- While hauling the mooring line, simultaneously pulling a tensioning line toward the anchor handling vessel to apply tension, where the tensioning line is coupled to the mooring line via a tension coupler.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint accuses Bardex of performing "mooring projects in which the mooring apparatus and methods disclosed and/or claimed in the ’160 Patent were employed." (Compl. ¶14).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that Bardex has "marketed for and carried out" these mooring projects. (Compl. ¶14). However, the complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the specific technical steps or equipment used by Bardex in its accused projects.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint’s primary cause of action is for correction of inventorship, not patent infringement. (Compl. ¶15). The allegation of use in paragraph 14 is conclusory and lacks a detailed mapping to the patent claims. The following chart summarizes the allegation that Bardex's projects practice the method of claim 1.
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
’160 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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... | The complaint alleges that Bardex carried out mooring projects using the methods claimed in the ’160 Patent. | ¶14 | col. 16:26-34 |
| 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. | The complaint alleges that Bardex carried out mooring projects using the methods claimed in the ’160 Patent. | ¶14 | col. 16:35-42 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Ownership and Standing: The threshold dispute is not infringement but ownership. The complaint asserts that because a Delmar employee was a rightful co-inventor, Delmar is a co-owner of the patent. (Compl. ¶13). As a co-owner, Delmar would not be able to sue Bardex for infringement, but would be entitled to an accounting of profits. The primary legal question is whether Delmar can prove incorrect inventorship by clear and convincing evidence.
- Evidentiary Questions: Assuming Delmar establishes co-ownership, a factual dispute would arise over whether Bardex's mooring projects practice every limitation of the asserted claims. The complaint does not present specific evidence detailing Bardex’s accused methods.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "fairlead stopper"
- Context and Importance: This is the key piece of equipment on the moored vessel that enables the claimed method. Its definition is critical because if Bardex uses a different type of mooring hardware, it may not infringe. Practitioners may focus on whether the term is limited to the specific commercial embodiment disclosed or covers a broader class of devices.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that the disclosed fairlead stoppers are not limited to the structures shown and "may be any of various structures capable of moving or facilitating movement of mooring lines and securing a position of mooring lines." (’160 Patent, col. 5:29-35).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly references the "BARLATCH™ Fairlead Stopper by Bardex Corporation" as an "exemplary fairlead suitable for use." (’160 Patent, col. 4:10-13). A party could argue that the claims should be construed in light of this specific, detailed embodiment depicted in Figures 2A-2I.
The Term: "while hauling in the mooring line, pulling a tensioning line"
- Context and Importance: This phrase dictates the sequence and simultaneity of the core inventive steps. Infringement may turn on whether Bardex’s accused methods perform these two "pulling" actions concurrently.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "while" could be interpreted to mean any temporal overlap between the two actions, not necessarily perfect synchronization from start to finish.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the two actions as working together to maintain the AHV's equilibrium position, suggesting a more tightly coupled and simultaneous operation is intended. (’160 Patent, col. 8:50-64).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not allege indirect infringement.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not allege willful infringement. The allegations of knowing misconduct relate to the failure to name an inventor and the alleged conversion of intellectual property, which form the basis for the inventorship and state law claims. (Compl. ¶¶17-19, 25).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This case is not a conventional patent infringement suit; it is fundamentally a dispute over ownership rooted in an inventorship claim. The central questions for the court will likely be:
- A question of inventorship: Can Delmar prove with clear and convincing evidence that its employee conceived of a material contribution to at least one claim of the ’160 Patent and was improperly omitted as an inventor? The outcome of the entire case, including the state law claims, hinges on this determination.
- A question of contract and property rights: How do the pre-existing Non-Disclosure and Memorandum of Understanding agreements, which stipulate that intellectual property remains with the "originating party," influence the analysis of who owns the inventive concepts at issue? (Compl. ¶7).
- An evidentiary question of use: If Delmar succeeds in being added as a co-owner, can it then provide sufficient factual evidence to demonstrate that Bardex's commercial "mooring projects" actually practice the patented methods and entitle Delmar to an accounting of profits?