DCT
7:18-cv-00147
Continental Intermodal Group Trucking LLC v. Sand Revolution LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Continental Intermodal Group – Trucking LLC (Oklahoma)
- Defendant: Sand Revolution LLC; Sand Revolution II, LLC (Texas)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Lynch, Chappell & Alsup; Lathrop Gage LLP
- Case Identification: 7:18-cv-00147, W.D. Tex., 08/21/2018
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendants' residence, commission of infringing acts, and maintenance of a regular and established place of business within the Western District of Texas.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s mobile proppant handling systems, used in the oil and gas industry, infringe a patent related to mobile material handling and metering systems.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns modular, transportable systems for storing and delivering large quantities of granular material, such as sand (proppant), at remote hydraulic fracturing sites.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Plaintiff sent letters to Defendant on April 12, 2018, and June 6, 2018, providing express notice of the patent-in-suit. These letters, which allegedly received no response, form the basis for the willfulness allegations.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2010-10-21 | U.S. Patent No. 8,944,740 Priority Date |
| 2015-02-03 | U.S. Patent No. 8,944,740 Issued |
| 2018-04-12 | Plaintiff sends first pre-suit notice letter |
| 2018-06-06 | Plaintiff sends second pre-suit notice letter |
| 2018-08-21 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,944,740 - “Mobile Material Handling and Metering System,” Issued February 3, 2015
- The Invention Explained:
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the logistical challenges of handling large volumes of granular material (proppant) at remote well sites. Conventional methods using fixed vertical silos are described as being slow to set up, requiring large cranes, creating significant dust, and having a large physical footprint. (’740 Patent, col. 1:21-42).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a modular system comprising transportable storage units and a central delivery unit. The core innovation is a mobile storage module that can be transported like a standard semi-trailer. Once on-site, a container portion of the module can be pivoted upwards into a raised, angled position using a built-in actuation system, allowing the granular material to be dispensed by gravity onto the delivery module's conveyors. This design aims to eliminate the need for external cranes for setup. (’740 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:44-56; Fig. 3).
- Technical Importance: The system provides a rapidly deployable, scalable, and more mobile alternative to traditional silo-based storage, which is particularly advantageous for the transient nature of hydraulic fracturing operations. (’740 Patent, col. 2:21-32).
- Key Claims at a Glance:
- The complaint identifies independent claim 13 as representative. (Compl. ¶12).
- Essential elements of claim 13 include:
- A mobile storage module configured to hold and dispense granular material downward to an adjacent delivery module.
- The module receives material via a "continuous belt loading system" coupled to an input port.
- The module itself comprises an "integrated actuating system" to move a container portion between a lowered (transport) position and a raised (operational) position.
- The module includes a frame and a container portion pivotably coupled to the frame.
- The container has an input port for receiving material and an output port for dispensing it.
- In the raised position, the input port is located above the output port to facilitate gravity-assisted flow.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims. (Compl. ¶15).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: Defendant's "proppant handling system." (Compl. ¶¶14, 16).
- Functionality and Market Context:
- The complaint alleges the accused system is used for "on-site proppant management" and is marketed to the oil and gas industry. (Compl. ¶13).
- Functionally, the system is alleged to include a mobile unit for storage, a delivery unit for moving proppant, and a "belt loader" for filling the storage units. (Compl. ¶14).
- The complaint alleges the accused system "comprises a frame, a container portion, and an integrated actuating system to pivot the container portion between lowered and raised positions," directly mirroring the language of the patent's claims. (Compl. ¶15).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
- ’740 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 13) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A mobile storage module for providing granular material to an adjacent delivery module... configured... to hold and dispense said granular material downward to the adjacent delivery module... | Defendant provides a "mobile unit for on-site proppant storage" and a "delivery unit for delivering proppant from a mobile storage unit to a specified location." | ¶14 | col. 2:34-43 |
| ...and to receive said granular material for holding via a continuous belt loading system operatively coupled to an input port, the continuous belt loading system being separated from the adjacent delivery module... | The accused system includes a "belt loader for transferring proppant from incoming delivery vehicles to one or more mobile storage units." | ¶14 | col. 6:54-58 |
| ...wherein the mobile storage module comprises an integrated actuating system for moving a container portion thereof between a lowered position and a raised position, the raised position corresponding to the mobile storage module operational configuration... | Defendant's system "comprises... an integrated actuating system to pivot the container portion between lowered and raised positions, as recited in the various claims of the ‘740 Patent." | ¶15 | col. 6:1-4 |
| ...the mobile storage unit comprising: a. a frame; b. the container portion supported by the frame and pivotably coupled thereto... comprising the input port for receiving said granular material and an output port for dispensing said granular material; and c. the integrated actuating system configured to pivot... | Defendant's system comprises "a frame, a container portion, and an integrated actuating system to pivot the container portion between lowered and raised positions." | ¶15 | col. 6:58-col.7:1 |
| ...wherein, in the raised position, the input port is located above the output port. | This element is implicitly alleged by the assertion that the system "practices every element of one or more claims of the ‘740 Patent, including without limitation claim 13." (Compl. ¶15). | ¶15 | col. 6:5-7 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: The complaint's infringement allegations are largely conclusory, tracking the language of the claims without providing specific technical details about the accused system's operation. (Compl. ¶15). A central factual question will be whether the mechanism Defendant uses to raise its storage container is structurally and functionally equivalent to the "integrated actuating system" described and claimed in the ’740 Patent, which is primarily detailed as a hydraulic system. (’740 Patent, col. 6:63-65).
- Scope Questions: The dispute may turn on the interpretation of key claim terms. For example, a question for the court could be whether a separate, standalone "belt loader" (Compl. ¶14) meets the "operatively coupled" limitation of the claimed "continuous belt loading system," particularly if the patent’s embodiments suggest a more integrated or stowable loader. (’740 Patent, col. 8:45-49).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "integrated actuating system"
- Context and Importance: This term is central to the patent's asserted novelty of a self-erecting storage module that avoids the need for external cranes. The infringement case hinges on whether Defendant's lifting mechanism falls within the scope of this term.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not specify the type of system (e.g., hydraulic, electric, mechanical), which may support an argument that the term covers any built-in mechanism that performs the pivoting function. (’740 Patent, cl. 13).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification's only detailed embodiment of this system is hydraulic, describing "a hydraulic actuator 350, for example comprising a set of one or more hydraulic piston-cylinder assemblies." (’740 Patent, col. 6:63-col. 7:1). A defendant may argue this disclosure limits the term's scope to hydraulic systems or their direct equivalents.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement.
- Inducement is premised on the allegation that Defendant "directs and/or instructs others to assemble, use, and/or operate its proppant handling system." (Compl. ¶27).
- Contributory infringement is based on allegations that Defendant sells components of the system knowing they are "especially made or adapted for use in an infringement" and lack substantial non-infringing uses. (Compl. ¶28).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s continued infringement after receiving two pre-suit notice letters in April and June 2018, to which Defendant allegedly did not respond. (Compl. ¶¶18, 23).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim construction: how will the court define the scope of the term "integrated actuating system"? Will the definition be broad enough to cover any built-in lifting mechanism, or will it be constrained by the specification's focus on hydraulic embodiments?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: beyond the conclusory allegations in the complaint, what specific evidence will emerge to demonstrate that the accused Sand Revolution system's components and their method of operation map onto the specific limitations of the asserted claims? The case will likely depend on a detailed, element-by-element comparison of the accused product's functionality against the claim language.