DCT
6:24-cv-00645
SitePro Inc v. Plow Tech LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: SitePro, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: Plow Technologies LLC, Plow Technologies Texas LLC, PakEnergy, LLC, and related entities (Oklahoma, Texas, and Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Perkins Coie LLP
- Case Identification: 6:24-cv-00645, W.D. Tex., 04/09/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas based on Defendants maintaining regular and established places of business within the district, including an office in Midland, Texas. The complaint further alleges venue through theories of agency and alter ego among the various defendant entities.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ OnPing cloud SCADA platform and associated hardware infringe eight patents related to the remote control and monitoring of fluid-handling equipment.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) systems used to manage industrial equipment, particularly in geographically dispersed oil and gas facilities, where reliable remote operation is critical for efficiency and safety.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that this action is related to two other patent infringement cases filed by SitePro against a different defendant, TankLogix, LLC, asserting different patents from the same family.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2012-01-01 | Alleged conception date for the Asserted Patents |
| 2012-12-07 | Earliest priority date for all eight Asserted Patents |
| 2014-02-11 | U.S. Patent No. 8,649,909 issues |
| 2016-05-17 | U.S. Patent No. 9,342,078 issues |
| 2018-02-20 | U.S. Patent No. 9,898,014 issues |
| 2019-11-26 | U.S. Patent No. 10,488,871 issues |
| 2021-11-16 | U.S. Patent No. 11,175,680 issues |
| 2022-04-05 | U.S. Patent No. 11,294,403 issues |
| 2023-08-15 | U.S. Patent No. 11,726,504 issues |
| 2024-06-25 | U.S. Patent No. 12,019,461 issues |
| 2024-08-20 | PakEnergy announces acquisition of Plow Technologies |
| 2025-04-09 | Complaint filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,649,909 - "Remote control of fluid-handling devices," issued February 11, 2014
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent specification describes problems with prior art SCADA systems, noting that they often fail when a network connection is lost and require the installation of special-purpose software on user devices to exercise remote control, which hinders scalability and usability (Compl. ¶44; ’909 Patent, col. 1:33-42).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a system architecture comprising a central "command-center server" and multiple geographically distributed "site master controllers." These local controllers are designed to receive commands from the server, translate them into device-specific protocols, and execute them locally. A key aspect is the ability of the site master-controller to buffer data and maintain control over on-site equipment even if the network connection to the central server is intermittently lost (Compl. ¶48; ’909 Patent, col. 10:39-50).
- Technical Importance: This "edge computing" approach was designed to increase the reliability and resilience of remote monitoring systems in industries like oil and gas, where facilities are often in areas with unreliable network infrastructure (Compl. ¶53).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-21 (Compl. ¶62, ¶73).
- Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- A command-center server with a data store for multiple user accounts corresponding to different entities.
- A plurality of geographically distributed site master controllers, each comprising a communication module, network interface, memory, and processor.
- The controller is configured to receive commands from the server in a first protocol.
- The controller determines a plurality of different target states for a fluid-handling device over time.
- The controller is operative to maintain control of the fluid-handling devices in the absence of a network connection to the server.
- The controller translates the commands into a plurality of different protocols suitable for the specific fluid-handling devices.
- The controller sends the translated commands to the respective local controllers of the fluid-handling devices.
U.S. Patent No. 9,898,014 - "Remote control of fluid-handling devices," issued February 20, 2018
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same technical problems as the parent '909 Patent: the unreliability of SCADA systems during network outages and the difficulty of scaling systems that require special-purpose software for each new device or user (Compl. ¶¶ 44-46; ’014 Patent, col. 1:44-53).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a hosted, web-based system that implements a multi-tenant architecture for remote industrial control. The system uses a central datastore to manage distinct user accounts, associate different groups of facilities with different entities, and enforce granular user permissions. For example, the claims describe a structure where some users are authorized to send control commands to one group of facilities, while other users are only authorized to view data reports from a different group of facilities (’014 Patent, Abstract; col. 16:48-17:15).
- Technical Importance: This solution provides a framework for a scalable, secure, multi-tenant Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) platform for industrial control, allowing multiple client entities to manage their respective assets through a single, centralized system (Compl. ¶54).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-23 (Compl. ¶90, ¶101).
- Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- A computer-implemented datastore storing a plurality of accounts and network addresses for industrial equipment.
- A computer-implemented facility-interface module to obtain data from sensors and send commands to actuators.
- A computer-implemented web-interface module to present control interfaces in web browsers and receive user commands.
- A specific four-part account structure:
- A first account authorized to control a first group of facilities.
- A second account authorized to control a second, different group of facilities.
- A third account authorized to view reports from the first group of facilities.
- A fourth account authorized to view reports from the second group of facilities.
Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 11,175,680
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11175680, "Remote control of fluid-handling devices," issued November 16, 2021.
- Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a non-transitory, machine-readable medium with instructions for a server-and-controller system. The server receives a command and target value, identifies the correct local controller via a network address, and sends the target value. The local controller then receives the value, measures a fluid property, and controls an actuator based on a set point derived from the command (Compl. ¶130).
- Asserted Claims: Claims 1-20 (Compl. ¶119).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges the OnPing cloud-based infrastructure and the Lumberjack edge computer's local scripting and control capabilities infringe these claims (Compl. ¶¶ 132-139).
Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 11,726,504
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11726504, "Remote control of fluid-handling devices," issued August 15, 2023.
- Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a fluid processing system with a local computer system at a fluid handling site and a remote server system. The local system receives sensor data and provides remote control. The server system receives the data, authenticates a client device's credentials, provides a user interface with the data, and causes the local system to execute commands that change a device's state to a sequence of different target states over time (Compl. ¶155).
- Asserted Claims: Claims 1-20 (Compl. ¶144).
- Accused Features: The complaint maps these claims to the OnPing server and Lumberjack local computer architecture, alleging the Lumberjack's ability to operate during network outages and execute scripts with changing setpoints infringes (Compl. ¶¶ 158, 167).
Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,342,078
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9342078, "Remote control of fluid-handling devices," issued May 17, 2016.
- Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a method for remote control where a system receives user instructions in a shared protocol. A key feature is determining a plurality of different target states over time for a device, selecting a specific protocol for that device from a plurality of different available protocols, translating the instruction into the selected protocol, and sending it to the device (Compl. ¶183).
- Asserted Claims: Claims 1-9, 11-13, and 15-19 (Compl. ¶172).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the OnPing system, particularly the Lumberjack's support for a "Wide Range of Available Protocols" and its ability to execute scripts that change setpoints over time, practices this method (Compl. ¶¶ 188-190).
Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 10,488,871
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10488871, "Remote control of fluid-handling devices," issued November 26, 2019.
- Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a method of remote control that is structurally very similar to the system claimed in the ’014 Patent. It involves storing records for a multi-tenant system and implementing the specific four-part account structure with differing permissions for controlling versus viewing reports across two different groups of facilities (Compl. ¶207).
- Asserted Claims: Claims 18-34 (Compl. ¶196).
- Accused Features: The infringement allegations mirror those for the ’014 Patent, focusing on the OnPing platform's alleged multi-tenant capabilities and user permission structures (Compl. ¶¶ 210-222).
Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 11,294,403
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11294403, "Remote control of fluid-handling devices," issued April 5, 2022.
- Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a system comprising a local computer at a fluid handling site (with a pump, valve, tank, and fluid-level sensor) and a remote server. The server receives the fluid level, obtains and authenticates user credentials, provides a UI, and causes the local computer to change the state of the pump over a sequence of different target states (Compl. ¶238).
- Asserted Claims: Claims 1-30 (Compl. ¶227).
- Accused Features: The allegations focus on the combination of the OnPing server and the Lumberjack local computer, which is alleged to have sensors and control equipment and to execute commands from the server to change equipment states over time (Compl. ¶¶ 241, 248).
Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 12,019,461
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12019461, "Remote control of fluid-handling devices," issued June 25, 2024.
- Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a method that mirrors the system claims of the ’504 and ’403 patents. The method involves steps performed by both a first computer system at the fluid-handling site and a remote server system, including receiving sensor data locally, providing remote control, authenticating users at the server, and causing the local system to effectuate a command by changing a device's state to a sequence of different targets over time (Compl. ¶264).
- Asserted Claims: Claims 1-17 (Compl. ¶253).
- Accused Features: The allegations are directed at the operational methods of the combined OnPing and Lumberjack system, including its alleged ability to perform local data collection and control in response to commands from the remote, authenticating server (Compl. ¶¶ 267, 274).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The "OnPing system," which is described as an "innovative cloud SCADA platform" (Compl. ¶40). The system is comprised of the cloud-based OnPing software platform and on-site hardware, including "Lumberjack Edge Computers" (Compl. ¶77).
- Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges the OnPing system provides remote management and automation for industrial sites, particularly in the oil and gas sector (Compl. ¶¶ 38-40). A key alleged feature is its architecture, which uses on-site "Lumberjack" hardware acting as "micro servers" (Compl. ¶77). These devices allegedly poll local sensors and control equipment, store data locally, and communicate with the remote OnPing cloud servers. The complaint cites Defendants' materials stating that this design allows the system to continue functioning and storing data "even in the temporary absence of a network connection" (Compl. ¶83). A screenshot from Defendants' website shows a system architecture diagram with on-site equipment communicating via a cell tower to "OnPing Cloud Services" (Compl. p. 27). The system is allegedly accessed by users via a web-based portal to monitor conditions and control equipment (Compl. ¶¶ 76, 104).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
- U.S. Patent No. 8,649,909 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a command-center server having a data store storing multiple user accounts... each set being operated by a different entity corresponding to the respective user account | The OnPing system is a hosted SCADA/HMI platform that allows management of assets in the field. It provides a single portal for users from different entities to log in and create new user accounts, which are stored in a datastore. | ¶76 | col. 4:25-42 |
| a plurality of geographically distributed site master controllers | The Accused System includes "Lumberjack Edge Computers," which are described as advanced on-site computers that act as micro-servers at geographically distributed customer sites. An architectural diagram in the complaint shows multiple on-site systems connecting to the cloud services (Compl. p. 27). | ¶77 | col. 3:15-22 |
| wherein the respective site-master controller is operative to maintain control of the fluid handling devices in the absence of a network connection to the command-center server | The complaint cites Defendants' documentation stating the Lumberjack computer "sits on your site, polling all field devices on a local network, archiving, and storing all the results... even in the temporary absence of a network connection, the Lumberjack proceeds as always, picking up where it left off as soon as a connection is re-established." | ¶83 | col. 5:10-19 |
| translating the plurality of commands into translated commands encoded in a plurality of protocols different from the first protocol, each translated command being translated into a protocol among the plurality of protocols suitable for a fluid-handling device | The Lumberjack hardware is advertised as supporting a "Wide Range of Available Protocols," and user guides allegedly show how to add devices using different protocols, such as Modbus. This suggests protocol translation occurs at the local device. | ¶84 | col. 10:28-60 |
| sending the translated commands to respective local controllers of the respective fluid-handling devices | The Lumberjack device is alleged to sit on-site and poll "all field devices on a local network," which implies it sends commands to the controllers for those devices. | ¶85, ¶78 | col. 10:61-11:2 |
Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question will be whether the accused "Lumberjack Edge Computer," described as a "micro server," meets the functional and structural limitations of the claimed "site master controller." The analysis may focus on the degree of autonomy and the specific translation capabilities required by the claim language versus those performed by the accused device.
- Technical Questions: The complaint relies heavily on marketing materials and user guides to allege infringement. A key evidentiary question will be whether the OnPing system, in its actual operation, performs the claimed step of "translating" commands from a "first protocol" (from the server) into a "plurality of protocols different from the first protocol" at the edge device, or whether the server sends device-specific commands directly.
U.S. Patent No. 9,898,014 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A hosted, web-based, remote industrial monitoring and control system for geographically distributed facilities | The OnPing system is described as a hosted SCADA/HMI platform that allows oil and gas operators to close multiple wells simultaneously and pause production for an entire field remotely. | ¶103 | col. 16:48-51 |
| a computer-implemented datastore storing: a plurality of accounts, each account corresponding to an entity operating one or more geographically distributed oil or gas facilities | The OnPing platform provides a single login portal for users representing different entities. User guides allegedly disclose the creation of new users, which on information and belief are stored in a datastore. A screenshot shows the "New User" creation interface (Compl. p. 43). | ¶104, ¶105 | col. 4:25-34 |
| a computer-implemented facility-interface module or modules configured to obtain data from the sensors at the facilities and send commands to the actuators at the facilities via the cellular network connections | The Lumberjack device is alleged to be a facility-interface module that "polling all field devices on a local network, archiving, and storing all the results and passing them to our remote servers." Communication is alleged to occur via a cell tower. | ¶107 | col. 16:62-67 |
| a computer-implemented web-interface module or modules configured to send instructions to present control interfaces in web browsers executing on user computing devices logged in to the accounts | The OnPing system is alleged to be "accessible from any mobile internet enabled device" to access data and setpoints, and provides a login portal for web browsers. | ¶108 | col. 17:1-6 |
| wherein: the plurality of accounts include a first account, a second account, a third account, and a fourth account; [with specific permissions for controlling or viewing two different groups of facilities] | On information and belief, the Accused System is alleged to comprise this four-part account structure. The complaint alleges the system has multiple customers (first and second accounts) and provides features for both control and data visualization (third and fourth accounts). | ¶110-114 | col. 17:7-15 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The infringement allegation for the specific four-part account structure is based on "information and belief." A critical point of contention will be whether the claim requires the system to be merely capable of such a configuration or whether it must be actually used this way by Defendants or their customers to infringe.
- Technical Questions: Plaintiff will face the evidentiary challenge of proving that Defendants' customer base and user permission settings actually map onto the highly specific structure of first, second, third, and fourth accounts as laid out in the claim. For example, discovery would need to show that users of a "second account" are authorized to view reports of data from facilities associated with a "first account" entity.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
For the ’909 Patent:
- The Term: "site master controller"
- Context and Importance: This term is central to the patent's "edge computing" concept. Its construction will determine whether the accused "Lumberjack Edge Computer" falls within the scope of the claims. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to be the point of novelty that enables operation during network outages.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the function of the controller as being "operative to receive commands... translate those commands... and implement the command once received, even if network access is lost" (’909 Patent, col. 10:39-44). This functional description could support a broader definition not limited to a specific hardware configuration.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 1 of the patent depicts the "site master-controller" (18) as containing specific, named sub-components, including a "site-management module" (70), a "protocol multiplexer" (72), and distinct "command translators" (74). This detailed embodiment could be used to argue for a narrower construction that requires these specific internal structures.
For the ’014 Patent:
- The Term: "the plurality of accounts include a first account, a second account, a third account, and a fourth account" (and the corresponding authorization limitations)
- Context and Importance: This limitation defines the specific multi-tenant, multi-permission architecture of the claimed system. The infringement case for this patent hinges on whether the OnPing system can be proven to be configured or used in this exact manner.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's abstract describes a general "hosted, web-based, remote industrial monitoring and control system for geographically distributed facilities," suggesting the invention's applicability to any multi-tenant arrangement. A party might argue the four-account structure is an exemplary, non-limiting embodiment of this broader concept.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language is highly specific, reciting not just four accounts but also their exact relationships and permissions relative to two distinct groups of facilities (’014 Patent, col. 17:7-15). The word "include" suggests these four account types must actually be present, supporting an argument that a system merely capable of such a configuration, but not implementing it, would not infringe.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, stating that Defendants provide "product manuals and other technical information that cause their subscribers, customers, and other third parties to use and to operate the Accused System" in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶67, ¶95, ¶124). Contributory infringement is also alleged on the basis that the Accused System is especially made or adapted for infringement and is not a staple article of commerce (Compl. ¶68, ¶96, ¶125).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendants having knowledge of the patents "since at least as early as the filing of this lawsuit, or as early as Defendants’ employees have accessed the patent information on SitePro’s website" (Compl. ¶72, ¶100). The pleading also states that continued use of the OnPing platform after the lawsuit was filed constitutes continued willful infringement (Compl. ¶88, ¶117).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of structural equivalence: can Plaintiff prove through technical evidence that the accused "Lumberjack Edge Computer" and "OnPing" cloud platform operate in a manner that meets the specific architectural limitations of a "site master controller," particularly with respect to local protocol translation and autonomous control during network outages?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of configurational proof: for patents like the ’014 and ’871, which claim a highly specific multi-account permission structure, can Plaintiff produce evidence that Defendants' system is actually used by customers in a way that satisfies this detailed limitation, or will the allegations made on "information and belief" be insufficient to establish direct infringement?
- A third question will be one of damages apportionment: given the assertion of eight patents with overlapping specifications against a single system, a significant challenge may be apportioning the alleged damages to the specific contribution of each patent's claimed invention, should infringement be found.