DCT
6:20-cv-00566
Gyrodata Inc v. Scientific Drilling Intl Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Gyrodata Incorporated (Delaware)
- Defendant: Scientific Drilling International, Inc. (Texas)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
- Case Identification: 6:20-cv-00566, W.D. Tex., 06/26/2020
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Western District of Texas because the defendant, a Texas corporation, is subject to personal jurisdiction, maintains a regular and established place of business in the district, and has allegedly committed acts of infringement there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s precision pump placement services for oil and gas wells infringe patents related to systems and methods for analyzing wellbore tortuosity.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns the measurement and analysis of deviations (tortuosity) in a wellbore's path, which is critical for optimizing the placement and operational lifespan of downhole equipment.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the defendant was aware of the plaintiff’s commercial product (MicroGuide™), which is marked as practicing the patents-in-suit, and was also aware of the patent applications during their prosecution, forming a basis for the willfulness allegations.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2014-02-21 | Earliest Priority Date for ’639 & ’896 Patents |
| 2017-06-01 | Accused Product (DuraSet) brochure published |
| 2019-06-11 | ’639 Patent Issued |
| 2019-06-25 | ’896 Patent Issued |
| 2020-06-26 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,316,639 - “System And Method For Analyzing Wellbore Survey Data To Determine Tortuosity Of The Wellbore Using Displacements Of The Wellbore Path From Reference Lines,” Issued June 11, 2019
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the problem of wellbore tortuosity—large variations in a wellbore’s path over short distances—which can impede the installation and operation of production equipment like pumps (’639 Patent, col. 1:30-40). Existing methods that utilized "measured dogleg" were described as potentially lacking sufficient detail and being noisy (Compl. ¶17, citing ’639 Patent, col. 3:61-4:2).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method to quantify tortuosity by first receiving wellbore survey data, then defining a "plurality of reference lines" based on that data, and finally "determining a plurality of displacements" of the actual wellbore path from those reference lines (’639 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:43-51). This approach aims to provide a more detailed and useful analysis of the wellbore's shape.
- Technical Importance: This improved quantification of tortuosity helps operators make better decisions about where to install equipment, thereby avoiding high-tortuosity sections that could reduce equipment lifetime and cause operational failures (Compl. ¶16).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶32).
- Claim 1 Elements:
- A method comprising: receiving survey data corresponding to a plurality of survey stations of a wellbore survey of a wellbore path, wherein the received survey data comprises gyroscopic data, data from magnetic instruments, or combinations thereof;
- defining a plurality of reference lines for the wellbore path based on the received survey data; and
- determining a plurality of displacements of the wellbore path from the plurality of reference lines.
U.S. Patent No. 10,329,896 - “System And Method For Analyzing Wellbore Survey Data To Determine Tortuosity Of The Wellbore Using Tortuosity Parameter Values,” Issued June 25, 2019
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Similar to the ’639 Patent, this patent targets the operational problems caused by high wellbore tortuosity and the shortcomings of prior art dogleg calculations, which could be noisy and lack sufficient detail (’896 Patent, col. 1:30-40; Compl. ¶17).
- The Patented Solution: The ’896 Patent discloses a method for analyzing tortuosity by receiving survey data and then "determining a plurality of tortuosity parameter values for the wellbore path within a corresponding plurality of analysis windows" (’896 Patent, Abstract). One such parameter involves calculating the ratio of the actual measured path distance (S) to the straight-line distance (L) between two points, which quantifies path elongation and thus tortuosity (’896 Patent, col. 19:8-15, 23:21-27). This provides a quantification of tortuosity that is allegedly less affected by noise and easier to use than prior techniques (Compl. ¶19).
- Technical Importance: By providing a robust method for calculating tortuosity values, the invention enables operators to identify optimal locations for downhole equipment, thereby improving operational efficiency and reducing the likelihood of costly failures (Compl. ¶20).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶46).
- Claim 1 Elements:
- A method, comprising: receiving survey data corresponding to a plurality of survey stations of a wellbore survey of a wellbore path, wherein the received survey data comprises gyroscopic data, data from magnetic instruments, or combinations thereof; and
- determining tortuosity for the wellbore path within a corresponding plurality of analysis windows based on the received survey data.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentality is Scientific Drilling International's (SDI) "DuraSet branded precision pump placement service" (Compl. ¶21).
Functionality and Market Context
The DuraSet service is alleged to combine "close interval survey data, collected with... high-speed Keeper gyro, with advanced 3D analysis software to identify hidden wellbore tortuosity" (Compl. ¶22). This analysis is used to "determine the ideal depth" for setting equipment like Electric Submersible Pumps (ESPs) or rod guides (Compl. ¶22). The service uses survey data with intervals as close as one foot and its software determines tortuosity to identify restrictions and allow for the "easy selection of an ideal pump interval" (Compl. ¶23). A marketing brochure image for the DuraSet service depicts a wellbore with a tortuous path, an inserted tool, and a corresponding data graph (Compl. p. 7).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'639 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| receiving survey data corresponding to a plurality of survey stations ... wherein the received survey data comprises gyroscopic data... or combinations thereof; | The DuraSet service "combines close interval survey data, collected with our high-speed Keeper gyro." | ¶22 | col. 4:9-18 |
| defining a plurality of reference lines for the wellbore path based on the received survey data; and | The service's "advanced 3D analysis software" is used "to identify hidden wellbore tortuosity," which is alleged to meet this limitation. | ¶22 | col. 2:47-49 |
| determining a plurality of displacements of the wellbore path from the plurality of reference lines. | The DuraSet software allegedly "identifies relative ID [inner diameter] restrictions for a given downhole pump," which implies a displacement calculation. | ¶23 | col. 2:49-51 |
'896 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| receiving survey data corresponding to a plurality of survey stations ... wherein the received survey data comprises gyroscopic data... or combinations thereof; | The DuraSet service "combines close interval survey data, collected with our high-speed Keeper gyro." | ¶22 | col. 4:10-18 |
| determining tortuosity for the wellbore path within a corresponding plurality of analysis windows based on the received survey data. | The DuraSet service uses "advanced 3D analysis software to identify hidden wellbore tortuosity and determine the ideal depth for setting" equipment. | ¶22 | col. 2:1-4 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Evidentiary Questions: The complaint's infringement allegations rely on marketing descriptions of the DuraSet service's functionality. A central question for the court will be what evidence demonstrates that SDI’s "advanced 3D analysis software" actually performs the specific steps of "defining... reference lines" and "determining... displacements" ('639 Patent) or "determining tortuosity... within... analysis windows" ('896 Patent) as required by the claims. The complaint does not contain allegations based on a technical analysis or reverse engineering of the accused software.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "reference lines" (’639 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term is a core functional element of the ’639 Patent’s method. Its construction will be critical for determining whether any analytical construct or calculation within the accused software meets this limitation.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language does not specify how the lines must be defined. The specification provides multiple examples, such as "a straight reference line defined by the positions of the first and last survey stations of the analysis window" or "a curved reference line defined by the weighted best fit" (’639 Patent, col. 8:12-24), which may suggest the term is not limited to a single embodiment.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also describes more complex methods for generating the lines, such as an "iteratively derived line" (’639 Patent, col. 8:26-34). A defendant may argue that the term should be limited to such specific methods disclosed as the solution to prior art problems.
The Term: "tortuosity parameter values" (’896 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term defines the output of the claimed method in the ’896 Patent. The scope of this term will determine what kind of analytical output from the accused service—whether a quantitative score, a graphical representation, or a simple recommendation—constitutes infringement.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discloses multiple ways to calculate a tortuosity parameter, including path elongation (T=S/L-1) and effective inner diameter (Deff) (’896 Patent, col. 19:8-15; col. 15:20-27). This variety could support an interpretation that the term is not limited to a single formula.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The complaint emphasizes that the invention provides a "quantification of tortuosity" (Compl. ¶19). A defendant may argue this requires a specific numerical output, and that a qualitative assessment or a visual representation of "hidden wellbore tortuosity" (Compl. ¶22) does not meet this limitation.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement for both patents, asserting that SDI provides its customers with instructions and guidance on how to use the DuraSet service to perform tortuosity logging and downhole tool placement, thereby intending for its customers to infringe (Compl. ¶¶34-35, 47-48).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for both patents. The allegations are based on purported pre-suit knowledge, claiming SDI was aware of Gyrodata’s commercial MicroGuide™ product and was also aware of the patent applications that matured into the patents-in-suit during their prosecution (Compl. ¶¶24-26, 36).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of evidentiary proof: Can the plaintiff demonstrate, through discovery of the defendant's proprietary software, that the internal operations of the DuraSet service meet the specific functional limitations of the asserted claims, moving beyond the high-level marketing language presented in the complaint?
- The case will also turn on claim construction: Will key functional terms like "reference lines" and "tortuosity parameter values" be interpreted broadly to cover a range of analytical techniques for assessing wellbore deviation, or will they be construed more narrowly, tied to the specific mathematical formulae and procedural embodiments detailed in the patents’ specifications?
- A key factual question for willfulness and potential enhanced damages will be the strength of pre-suit knowledge allegations: Can the plaintiff substantiate its claims that the defendant was aware of the specific patented technology, either through monitoring the plaintiff's products or its patent prosecution activities, before the lawsuit was filed?