DCT
6:21-cv-00864
GD Energy Products LLC v. Premium Oilfield Tech LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Gardner Denver Petroleum Pumps, LLC (Oklahoma)
- Defendant: Premium Oilfield Technologies LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP
- Case Identification: 6:21-cv-00864, W.D. Tex., 08/17/2021
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant maintaining multiple "regular and established places of business" within the Western District of Texas, including three field sales offices and a global drilling support location.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s replacement fluid end modules for high-pressure pumps, marketed as compatible with Plaintiff's products, infringe a patent related to a specific design for retaining internal components.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns the "fluid end" of high-pressure plunger pumps, a critical component in the oil and gas industry that is subject to extreme stress and wear.
- Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit claims priority to an application filed in 2012. The complaint notes that Plaintiff has marked its own commercial products with the patent number since July 2018, which may be relevant to issues of notice and damages.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2012-09-24 | ’746 Patent Priority Date |
| 2017-08-15 | '746 Patent Issue Date |
| 2018-07-01 | Plaintiff begins selling its marked 7500 HD Fluid End product |
| 2021-08-17 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,732,746, "Fluid End of a High Pressure Plunger Pump," issued August 15, 2017.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the challenge of designing high-pressure plunger pumps that are resistant to fatigue failure caused by high operational stresses, particularly at the intersection of the various fluid bores within the pump’s main body, or "fluid end" (Compl. ¶17; ’746 Patent, col. 1:23-26). Prior designs for securing internal components, such as valve spring retainers, could contribute to these stresses (Compl. ¶17).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a specific geometric configuration within the fluid end casing designed to securely hold an inlet spring retainer while minimizing stress. The design features two opposing V-shaped grooves at the intersection of the inlet bore and a "cross bore intersection space." A corresponding inlet spring retainer is designed to be "orientable" in two positions: a first orientation allows the retainer to be easily inserted or removed during maintenance, and a second orientation, achieved by rotating the retainer, causes it to engage with the V-shaped grooves, locking it in place axially to prevent movement during operation (Compl. ¶16; ’746 Patent, Abstract; col. 7:6-40).
- Technical Importance: This design approach sought to improve the structural integrity and serviceability of a high-wear component in industrial pumps by providing a novel, non-threaded method for securing an internal part in a high-stress area (Compl. ¶17).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 5.
- The essential elements of independent claim 5 are:
- A casing for a fluid end of a plunger pump that defines a working space.
- The working space comprises an inlet bore, an outlet bore, a plunger bore, and a valve cover bore, which cooperate to define a "cross bore intersection space."
- The casing defines an "inlet bore transition area" at the intersection of the inlet bore and the cross bore intersection space.
- A first and a second V-shaped groove are formed adjacent to this transition area, each extending partially around the inlet bore axis.
- The grooves have upper and lower surfaces that define a specific "exterior angle between 180 degrees and 270 degrees."
- An inlet spring retainer with two engagement portions that is "orientable" into a first position for movement (installation/removal) and a second position where it engages the V-shaped grooves to inhibit its movement.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused products are Defendant's "Caliber GHD-7500" fluid end module and related products (Compl. ¶26).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused product is a replacement fluid end module for high-pressure pumps (Compl. ¶23). The complaint alleges the product is marketed as "Gardner Denver Compatible" and that Defendant's business model involves "copying and selling replaceable portions of various manufacturers' pump systems and parts" (Compl. ¶23). The infringement allegations assert that the Caliber GHD-7500 module contains the same arrangement of bores, V-shaped grooves, and an orientable retainer as claimed in the ’746 Patent (Compl. ¶¶28-30).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'746 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 5) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a casing defining at least one working space... the inlet bore, the outlet bore, the plunger bore, and the valve cover bore cooperating to define a cross bore intersection space... | The Caliber GHD-7500 fluid end module is alleged to be a casing with the recited bores that define a cross bore intersection space. This is illustrated in an annotated cutaway view of the product from Defendant's literature. (Compl. p. 9) | ¶28 | col. 4:51-54 |
| a first V-shaped groove formed adjacent the inlet bore transition area... [and] a second V-shaped groove formed adjacent the inlet bore transition area... | The casing of the accused module is alleged to include two V-shaped grooves located adjacent to the inlet bore transition area. The complaint provides an annotated, close-up image from Defendant's literature to show this feature. (Compl. p. 10) | ¶29 | col. 4:56-61 |
| the first V-shaped groove and the second V-shaped groove each comprise an upper surface and a lower surface that intersect at a fillet, the upper surface and the lower surface... defining an exterior angle between 180 degrees and 270 degrees... | The complaint alleges the grooves in the accused module have the claimed geometry, including the specified exterior angle. | ¶29 | col. 8:45-52 |
| an inlet spring retainer including a first engagement portion and a second engagement portion, the inlet spring retainer orientable in a first orientation... and a second orientation in which the inlet spring retainer engages the first V-shaped groove and the second V-shaped groove to inhibit movement... | The accused module is alleged to include an inlet spring retainer with two engagement portions that can be oriented for installation and then re-oriented to engage the grooves, locking it in place. An annotated image from Defendant's literature shows the alleged retainer. (Compl. p. 11) | ¶30 | col. 4:62-68 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A question for the court may be whether the accused product, marketed as a "compatible" replacement, is a direct copy that practices every limitation of the claim, or if it incorporates design variations that place it outside the literal scope of the claims.
- Technical Questions: What evidence, beyond annotated marketing materials, demonstrates that the accused product's internal geometry and retainer function precisely as claimed? The analysis may focus on whether the accused retainer is in fact "orientable" between the two distinct functional positions required by the claim language. The specific "exterior angle" of the grooves may also become a point of factual dispute requiring expert measurement and analysis.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "orientable in a first orientation... and a second orientation"
- Context and Importance: This functional language is the heart of the claimed invention, describing the retainer’s dual-purpose "moveable" versus "locked" states. Infringement hinges on whether the accused retainer is capable of performing both of these functions. Practitioners may focus on this term because the allegation of copying makes the functional equivalence of the parts a central issue.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not specify the mechanism of re-orientation (e.g., rotation, sliding), potentially allowing it to cover any method of changing the retainer's position between a state that allows axial movement and one that inhibits it.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification and figures consistently depict a specific "drop-in" and "rotate-to-lock" mechanism around a central axis ('746 Patent, col. 7:6-40; Figs. 8-9). A party could argue this context limits the term to a rotational re-orientation.
The Term: "V-shaped groove"
- Context and Importance: The precise geometry of this groove is a key limitation. The dispute may turn on how strictly the "V-shape" and its associated angular dimensions are defined.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself could be argued to encompass any groove with two surfaces meeting at an angle.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim explicitly requires the groove's surfaces to define an "exterior angle between 180 degrees and 270 degrees." The specification further details the groove's construction, including a "rounded transition area" or fillet at its base ('746 Patent, col. 8:52-56), which could be used to argue for a more specific structural definition beyond a simple "V".
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
- The complaint alleges induced infringement, asserting that Defendant provides "technical support and instructions" that lead customers to use the accused products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶32). It also pleads contributory infringement, alleging the inlet spring retainer is a material part of the invention, is not a staple article of commerce, and has no substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶33).
Willful Infringement
- The willfulness claim is based on alleged pre-suit knowledge. The complaint asserts that Defendant had "actual and constructive notice" of the ’746 Patent because Plaintiff has marked its own competing products with the patent number since 2018 (Compl. ¶35). The complaint further alleges that Defendant "intentionally copied" Plaintiff's product (Compl. ¶36).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of factual correspondence: does the accused "Caliber GHD-7500" module, as manufactured and sold, contain the precise internal geometry required by claim 5? The case may depend on evidence beyond marketing literature to prove that the accused grooves and retainer meet the specific angular and functional limitations of the patent.
- A key legal question will be one of claim construction: can the functional term "orientable," as used in the patent, be interpreted broadly to cover any two-position retention mechanism, or will it be limited by the specification's disclosure to the specific "rotate-to-lock" embodiment shown in the patent's figures?
- Finally, a central theme will be the allegation of copying: the assertion that the accused product is a "Gardner Denver Compatible" replacement will frame the dispute, raising the question of whether evidence of intent to copy can influence the infringement analysis, particularly with respect to willfulness and the doctrine of equivalents.