DCT

5:15-cv-00406

M-I LLC v. Fpusa LLC

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 5:15-cv-00406, W.D. Tex., 05/15/2015
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as the Defendant is a Texas company that resides within the Western District of Texas.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s drilling fluid recovery systems infringe a patent related to methods and systems for separating drill cuttings from drilling fluid using a pulsed-vacuum-assisted shaker.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue is used in the oil and gas industry to improve the efficiency of shale shakers, which separate valuable drilling fluid from waste rock cuttings for reuse.
  • Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit, issued in April 2015, was the subject of a subsequent Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding (IPR2016-00213), which was not mentioned in the complaint. The IPR resulted in a February 2018 certificate canceling asserted method claims 1, 3-6, 8-10, 14, and 15, while confirming the patentability of system claims 11, 12, and 16-18. This outcome significantly narrows the scope of claims available for assertion in this litigation from what was presumptively available at the time of filing.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2006-09-29 Priority Date for ’288 Patent
2015-04-14 U.S. Patent No. 9,004,288 Issued
2015-05-15 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,004,288 - "Shaker and Degasser Combination", issued April 14, 2015

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes a problem in the field of oil drilling where conventional shale shakers are often inefficient at separating drilling fluid ("mud") from rock cuttings. This results in "wet drill cuttings" and loss of valuable fluid (Compl. ¶8; ’288 Patent, col. 3:6-10). The patent notes that while applying a continuous vacuum beneath the shaker screen can pull more fluid through, it can also cause the solid cuttings to stick to or "stall" on the screen, hindering the separation process (’288 Patent, col. 3:37-43).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention claims to solve this problem by applying a pressure differential, such as a vacuum, in an intermittent or "pulsed" manner. This toggled vacuum is designed to enhance fluid removal through the screen while preventing the solids from stalling, thereby allowing them to be properly discharged from the shaker (’288 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:35-59). The system can also incorporate a degassing chamber to remove entrained gases from the recovered fluid (’288 Patent, col. 4:1-5).
  • Technical Importance: This approach seeks to make the recovery and recycling of drilling fluid more efficient, which is a significant operational and economic concern in drilling operations (’288 Patent, col. 2:49-54).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" without specifying which ones (Compl. ¶14). Independent claim 1, a method claim, was presumptively a basis for the suit at filing, though it was later canceled by the IPR.
  • Independent Claim 1 (Canceled):
    • introducing a slurry to a shaker having a first screen and a second screen;
    • flowing the slurry over the first screen;
    • applying a first pressure differential to the first screen and not applying the first pressure differential across the second screen; and
    • controlling air flow under at least a portion of the first screen to prevent stalling of the slurry on the first screen.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but its general allegation covers all claims. The case would now have to proceed on surviving claims, such as independent system claim 16.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are Defendant’s "Vac-Screen System (VSS), VSS-PLUS, and VSS-Lite," collectively referred to as the "Vac-Screen Systems" (Compl. ¶12).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint describes the accused products as "drilling fluid recovery systems" (Compl. ¶12). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
  • The complaint does not provide specific technical details about how the Vac-Screen Systems operate.
  • Plaintiff alleges that the Vac-Screen Systems "directly compete with M-I's Screen Pulse System" and that, upon information and belief, there are no other competitors in the U.S. selling a drilling fluid recovery system covered by the ’288 Patent (Compl. ¶¶12-13).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide a claim chart or detailed factual allegations mapping specific features of the Accused Instrumentality to the elements of any asserted claims. The infringement allegation is made in a conclusory fashion, stating only that the "Vac-Screen Systems and the use of FP’s Vac-Screen Systems are covered by one or more claims of the ’288 Patent" (Compl. ¶14). As such, a claim chart summary cannot be constructed.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Legal Question: A threshold issue is the legal effect of the IPR cancellation of claim 1 and other method claims. The case may only proceed if Plaintiff can prove infringement of the surviving claims (e.g., system claims 11, 12, 16-18).
    • Technical Question: For Plaintiff to succeed on a surviving system claim like claim 16, a central factual question will be whether the accused Vac-Screen Systems incorporate the specific components recited in that claim. For example, the complaint provides no evidence that the accused systems possess "a degassing chamber in fluid communication with the pressure differential generator and the sump and located external to the shaker" as required by claim 16 (’288 Patent, col. 12:59-65).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "toggling the first pressure differential"

    • Context and Importance: This term appears in canceled dependent claim 4 and is described in the specification as a key aspect of the invention. Its construction is critical to defining the inventive concept of an intermittent vacuum. Practitioners may focus on this term because the difference between a "toggled" vacuum and a continuous or merely fluctuating one could be dispositive for infringement of any surviving claims that rely on this principle.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes "toggling or pulsing" generally as "the changing of the pressure differential," which could encompass any variation, not just a complete on/off cycle (’288 Patent, col. 6:35-39).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also provides a more specific definition: changing the pressure from "static (a zero pressure differential across the screen) to at least a partial vacuum," which could be interpreted to require a return to a zero-pressure state between pulses (’288 Patent, col. 6:36-40).

  • The Term: "degassing chamber... located external to the shaker"

    • Context and Importance: This limitation is present in surviving independent system claim 16. The existence and location of such a chamber in the accused Vac-Screen Systems will likely be a primary factual dispute for infringement of this claim.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term could arguably cover any vessel or conduit external to the main shaker body where collected fluid resides and releases gas, even if not a dedicated "degassing" unit. The patent broadly states the system may include "a degassing chamber fluidly connected to the sump" (’288 Patent, col. 4:63-64).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 6 of the patent depicts the "degassing chamber" (212) as a distinct, separate component from the shaker sump (206) and the mud tank, suggesting a specific, purpose-built structure rather than just a section of pipe or a simple holding tank (’288 Patent, FIG. 6).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a conclusory allegation of active inducement and contributory infringement (Compl. ¶16). It does not, however, plead specific facts to support the required elements of knowledge and intent, such as by referencing user manuals, product specifications, or marketing materials that instruct on an infringing use.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not explicitly allege "willful infringement." It does, however, request relief in the form of enhanced damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284 and a finding that the case is "exceptional" to recover attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285, but it does not articulate a factual basis for these requests (Compl. ¶¶17, 19).

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

  1. Viability Post-IPR: The primary question is one of case viability: can the Plaintiff’s suit, as pleaded in its factually sparse complaint, proceed based solely on the system claims (e.g., claim 16) that survived the IPR, given that the originally asserted method claims have been canceled?
  2. Evidentiary Burden: A key question will be one of evidentiary proof: can the Plaintiff produce sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the accused "Vac-Screen Systems" actually contain each element of a surviving system claim, particularly structurally distinct components like the "degassing chamber ... located external to the shaker" required by claim 16, which are not mentioned in the complaint?