6:24-cv-00604
McCoy Global Inc v. Keystone Energy Tools LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: McCoy Global Inc. (Canada)
- Defendant: Keystone Energy Tools, LLC (Louisiana)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blank Rome LLP
- Case Identification: 6:24-cv-00604, W.D. Tex., 11/21/2024
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has a regular and established place of business in the district—specifically, an office in Odessa, Texas, for its founder and President—and has committed acts of patent infringement within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s flush mounted spider, a piece of oilfield equipment, infringes a patent related to a modular, adaptable spider assembly.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns "spiders," which are mechanical devices used on drilling rigs to grip and support tubulars, such as drill pipe and casing.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff’s counsel provided Defendant with notice of the patent and its infringement concerns via a letter and a draft of the complaint on November 20, 2024, one day prior to filing the lawsuit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2013-09-27 | Keystone's Effective SOS Registration Date in Texas |
| 2014-03-26 | '917 Patent Priority Date |
| 2017-03-21 | '917 Patent Issue Date |
| 2024-11-20 | McCoy notifies Keystone of infringement concerns |
| 2024-11-21 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,598,917 - “Flush Mounted Spider Assembly”
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes conventional spiders as being "purpose built to a specific size" and not "readily adaptable to different pipe sizes or rotary table openings" (ʼ917 Patent, col. 1:56-61). This lack of adaptability requires operators to have several different spiders on hand, and the devices are often difficult to disassemble for maintenance (ʼ917 Patent, col. 1:49-55).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a modular spider assembly constructed from multiple, separate segments. It comprises "spaced members" connected by "interconnecting members" to form a "segmented ring structure" that fits directly into the non-circular opening of a rotary table (ʼ917 Patent, col. 4:18-24). The dimensions of this ring structure can be changed by substituting interconnecting members of different lengths, allowing the single assembly to adapt to different rotary tables or pipe sizes with minimal part inventories (ʼ917 Patent, col. 4:62-65). The segmented design also allows the assembly to be built around an existing pipe (ʼ917 Patent, col. 4:49-54).
- Technical Importance: The modular and adaptable design sought to reduce the need for multiple, purpose-built spider assemblies on a drilling site, thereby increasing operational flexibility and reducing equipment costs (ʼ917 Patent, col. 1:50-55).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶17, ¶22).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- A base shaped to enter a rotary table opening.
- A plurality of spaced members extending from the base, joined by interconnecting members to define a "closed segmented ring structure" whose outer periphery matches the shape of the opening for direct torque resistance.
- The interconnecting members separate the spaced members and enable "dimensional change of said ring structure" when interconnecting members of different dimensions are substituted.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but the prayer for relief is broad (Compl. p. 8-9).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused product is the "KET 27 ½” Flush Mounted Spider" (the "KET Spider") (Compl. ¶2).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint describes the KET Spider as a "500-ton, 80k Torque Flush Mounted Spider" (Compl. ¶16). Based on marketing materials referenced in the complaint, it is designed for gripping oilfield pipe sizes ranging from 14 inches down to 2-3/8 inches (Compl. ¶16). The complaint includes images of the KET Spider, depicting a multi-part assembly used in oilfield operations. One such image shows two views of the KET Spider, illustrating its segmented construction. (Compl. ¶15).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that the KET Spider infringes at least claim 1 of the ’917 Patent and references a claim chart (Exhibit B) that was not attached to the publicly filed complaint (Compl. ¶17, ¶22). The following chart summarizes the infringement theory based on allegations in the complaint's body.
'917 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a base having a lower passage for the pipe to pass through, said base shaped to enter said opening; | The KET Spider is a "Flush Mounted Spider," which the complaint alleges is a tool for gripping tubulars that is placed within a drilling site's rotary equipment (Compl. ¶2, ¶12). Images of the product show a structure with a central opening for a pipe and an overall shape consistent with being mounted in other equipment (Compl. ¶15). | ¶2, ¶15, ¶16 | col. 4:7-9 |
| a plurality of spaced members extending from said base and terminating in upper ends with interconnecting members therebetween, adjacent said upper ends, to define a closed segmented ring structure with an outer periphery having the shape of said opening... | The complaint's images of the KET Spider depict an assembly made of multiple, distinct segments joined together to form a ring-like structure (Compl. ¶15). As a "Flush Mounted Spider," its function implies that its outer shape conforms to a rotary table opening to resist torque, as alleged for the patented invention (Compl. ¶16). | ¶15, ¶16, ¶22 | col. 4:10-19 |
| said interconnecting members separating said spaced members to form said closed segmented ring structure while enabling dimensional change of said ring structure with interconnecting members of different dimensions. | The complaint alleges the KET Spider accommodates a wide range of pipe sizes (14 inches to 2-3/8 inches) (Compl. ¶16). The infringement allegation asserts that the KET Spider meets this limitation, suggesting this adaptability is achieved via the claimed modular structure with interchangeable interconnecting members (Compl. ¶22). | ¶16, ¶22 | col. 4:20-24 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the term "segmented ring structure," as defined in the patent, reads on the specific construction of the KET Spider. The dispute could focus on how the components of the accused device are joined and whether they function as the claimed "spaced members" and "interconnecting members."
- Technical Questions: The complaint asserts the KET Spider accommodates a wide range of pipe sizes, but it does not specify how this is accomplished (Compl. ¶16). A key factual issue will be whether the KET Spider achieves this adaptability through the use of "interconnecting members of different dimensions," as required by claim 1, or through an alternative, non-infringing mechanism (e.g., solely by changing internal dies, a feature described separately in dependent claim 9 of the patent).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "segmented ring structure"
Context and Importance: This term is foundational to the patent's claim of modularity. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the KET Spider's multi-part assembly, shown in complaint images (Compl. ¶15), qualifies as a "segmented ring structure" as contemplated by the patent. Practitioners may focus on this term to determine if the patent covers any multi-part spider or is limited to a specific type of segmented construction.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 1 broadly defines the structure as comprising a "plurality of spaced members... with interconnecting members therebetween" ('917 Patent, col. 4:10-14). This language does not limit the specific form of the segments or their connections.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a specific embodiment where the assembly is "made up from slip carriers 5 and 9 and intervening mounting structures 1 and 11" held together by a "T-Slot" ('917 Patent, col. 2:57-61). A party could argue that the term should be limited to this type of construction where distinct carrier and mounting structures are used.
The Term: "enabling dimensional change of said ring structure with interconnecting members of different dimensions"
Context and Importance: This limitation captures the core inventive concept of adaptability. The infringement case hinges on whether the KET Spider's method for handling various pipe sizes is the one claimed.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language requires only that the interconnecting members enable dimensional change through substitution, without specifying the mechanism beyond using members of "different dimensions" ('917 Patent, col. 4:22-24).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification and other claims distinguish this dimensional change from merely changing dies. For example, claim 12 specifies changing the "outer periphery" by substituting "interconnecting members of a different length," and claim 13 addresses substituting the "spaced members" themselves ('917 Patent, col. 4:57-65). A party might argue that "dimensional change" must refer to altering the overall size of the ring itself, not just its internal gripping diameter.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Keystone induces infringement by "directing, causing, instructing, and/or encouraging" its customers, distributors, and resellers to use, offer for sell, and sell the accused KET Spider (Compl. ¶23-24).
- Willful Infringement: The willfulness claim is based on alleged pre-suit and post-suit knowledge. The complaint alleges Keystone continued its infringing acts after receiving actual notice on November 20, 2024, and also alleges that Keystone's infringement was "so obvious that it should have been known" even prior to the notice (Compl. ¶25).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim term "segmented ring structure", as described in the patent, be construed to cover the specific multi-part construction of the accused KET Spider, or is the patent limited to a more specific arrangement of components?
A key evidentiary question will be one of technical mechanism: does the KET Spider achieve its stated adaptability for a wide range of pipe sizes by using interchangeable "interconnecting members" to alter the ring's dimensions, as claim 1 requires, or does it rely on a different, non-infringing method? The complaint's lack of specific factual allegations on this point makes it a central area for discovery.