DCT
7:25-cv-00167
CP Energy Services Inc v. Petro Flow Control LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: CP Energy Services, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: Petro-Flow Control, LLC d/b/a Green Machine (Texas); Petro Environmental Solutions, LLC d/b/a Green Machine (Texas); Jon Paul Rountree (Texas); Troy Bollom (Texas); and Cortney LeGard (Texas)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Scheef & Stone, LLP
- Case Identification: 7:25-cv-00167, W.D. Tex., 04/16/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as all Defendants reside in the State of Texas, and the corporate defendants maintain a regular and established place of business in the Western District of Texas where acts of infringement have allegedly occurred.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ "Green Machine" oil and gas well-stream sand separator infringes two patents related to continuous circulation and separation technology.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses the separation of sand, water, and gas from well streams, a critical process during oil and gas well completion and flowback operations.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that two individual defendants, Jon Paul Rountree and Troy Bollom, are former employees of the Plaintiff who were involved in developing the patented technology and are named inventors on one of the asserted patents. Plaintiff alleges it sent Cease and Desist letters to the defendants beginning on December 26, 2024, providing actual notice of the patents prior to filing the lawsuit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2018-04-16 | Defendants Rountree and Bollom begin employment with Plaintiff |
| 2018-10-01 | Earliest priority date for ’567 and ’569 Patents |
| 2024-06-21 | Defendant Bollom’s employment with Plaintiff ends |
| 2024-04-22 | Defendant Rountree’s employment with Plaintiff ends |
| 2024-10-01 | Plaintiff becomes aware of the accused "Green Machine" (approximate) |
| 2024-12-24 | U.S. Patent No. 12,173,567 issues |
| 2024-12-24 | U.S. Patent No. 12,173,569 issues |
| 2024-12-26 | Plaintiff sends Cease & Desist letter to Defendants Rountree and Bollom |
| 2025-01-12 | Plaintiff re-sends Cease & Desist letter to Defendant Bollom |
| 2025-02-07 | Plaintiff sends Cease & Desist letter to Defendant Petro-Flow Control |
| 2025-02-21 | Defendant Petro-Flow Control's corporate existence is forfeited |
| 2025-03-01 | Plaintiff receives a copy of "The Green Machine Flyer" (approximate) |
| 2025-04-16 | Complaint filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 12,173,567 - Separator System and Method, issued December 24, 2024
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes conventional separators used in oil and gas drill-out processes as having long rig-up times (exceeding two hours), requiring third-party trucking and personnel, and relying on electronic systems that can fail and potentially cause explosions (’567 Patent, col. 1:21-29).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a "four-way separator" system designed for improved efficiency and safety. It features a main unit with a series of "recirculation chambers" that work in conjunction with a hopper and a vertical circulation separator (’567 Patent, Fig. 1). The system is designed to continuously circulate a mixture of sand and water, using features like internal baffles and angled sides to force sand toward suction ports, thereby preventing clogs and trapping residual sand that escapes the main hopper (’567 Patent, col. 2:9-28).
- Technical Importance: The claimed hydraulic-driven system aims to significantly reduce well-site setup time and eliminate the risks associated with failure-prone electronic control systems common in the field (’567 Patent, col. 4:51-62).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (a system) and 10 (a method) (Compl. ¶37).
- Independent Claim 1 (System) Essential Elements:
- A main unit comprising: a plurality of recirculation chambers with internal angled sides and a suction port for continuous circulation to a vertical circulation separator.
- At least one internal baffle between the recirculation chambers to force sand down to the suction port.
- A tank within the main unit formed by a partition.
- A hopper to receive material from the vertical separator, where the recirculation chambers trap material that escapes the hopper.
- Independent Claim 10 (Method) Essential Elements:
- Receiving material (hazardous material, water, sand) into a hopper.
- Trapping material that escapes the hopper in a plurality of recirculation chambers with internal angled sides and a suction port.
- Continuously recirculating residual sand from the suction port to a vertical separator and then to the hopper.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims 3, 5-9, and 11-12 (Compl. ¶38).
U.S. Patent No. 12,173,569 - Continuous Recirculation for Separation of Fluids during Drill Out and Flow Back, issued December 24, 2024
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the ongoing need for efficient and effective separators with minimal rig-up times for processing fluids produced during the drill out and flow back phases of well operations (’569 Patent, col. 2:7-12).
- The Patented Solution: This invention discloses a more complex separation process involving one or two continuous recirculation loops. A key innovation is the integration of a "diffuser" and a "shaker device" into the fluid circuit alongside the hopper and recirculation chamber (’569 Patent, Abstract). The system creates specific, interconnected fluid paths: from the hopper and/or recirculation chamber to the diffuser, from the diffuser to the shaker for de-watering, and then recycling liquid from the shaker back to the hopper (’569 Patent, col. 4:1-11).
- Technical Importance: By introducing a diffuser and shaker device in a specific recirculating loop, the invention aims to more effectively dry the separated sand, a critical step for disposal or reuse, while maintaining continuous operation (’569 Patent, col. 4:5-11).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (process), 9 (system), 17 (process), and 20 (process) (Compl. ¶51).
- Independent Claim 1 (Process) Essential Elements:
- Receiving a sand removal feed into a hopper.
- Flowing a portion of the mixture from the hopper to a diffuser.
- Flowing another portion into a recirculation chamber.
- Flowing a portion from the recirculation chamber to the diffuser.
- Flowing a different portion from the recirculation chamber to a gas separator.
- Flowing the combined mixture from the diffuser to a shaker device.
- Flowing recycle liquid from the shaker back to the hopper.
- Independent Claim 9 (System) Essential Elements:
- A hopper with a bottom outlet.
- A recirculation chamber with specific outlets.
- A diffuser with an inlet fluidly coupled to both the hopper outlet and a recirculation chamber outlet.
- A shaker device positioned at least partially below the diffuser and above the hopper.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert claims 1-8, 9-15, 17-19, and 20 (Compl. ¶52).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The "Green Machine," an oil and gas well-stream sand separator (Compl. ¶23).
- Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges the Green Machine is a "copy" of Plaintiff’s own SAND COMMANDER® product line and incorporates features covered by the asserted patents (Compl. ¶22-23). Defendants are alleged to offer the Green Machine for sale on their website and to have used a flyer to solicit Plaintiff's customers for services utilizing the accused product (Compl. ¶24, 30). A photograph of the accused "Green Machine" is provided in the complaint, depicting a large, skid-mounted separation system with a vertical vessel and multiple tanks (Compl. p. 8).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint makes general allegations of infringement without providing an element-by-element mapping of the accused Green Machine's features to the limitations of the asserted claims. The infringement theory rests on the allegation that the Green Machine is a "copy" of Plaintiff's commercial embodiment and possesses "features covered by the Asserted Patents" (Compl. ¶22-23). Consequently, the complaint does not currently provide sufficient detail for a complete claim-chart analysis.
- ’567 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a plurality of recirculation chambers arranged to separate a portion of a material...each...having internal angled sides and a suction port... | The complaint does not identify the specific component(s) of the Green Machine alleged to meet this limitation. | ¶38 | col. 7:13-19 |
| at least one internal baffle provided between one or more of the plurality of recirculation chambers...forcing sand down to the suction port... | The complaint does not identify the specific component(s) of the Green Machine alleged to meet this limitation. | ¶38 | col. 7:20-24 |
| a tank within the main unit formed by a partition | The complaint does not identify the specific component(s) of the Green Machine alleged to meet this limitation. | ¶38 | col. 7:25 |
| a hopper arranged to receive the material from the vertical circulation separator, wherein the plurality of recirculation chambers trap the portion of the material that escapes the hopper | The complaint does not identify the specific component(s) of the Green Machine alleged to meet this limitation. | ¶38 | col. 7:26-29 |
- ’569 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 9) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a hopper having an interior...wherein the hopper has a hopper bottom outlet... | The complaint does not identify the specific component(s) of the Green Machine alleged to meet this limitation. | ¶52 | col. 26:60-64 |
| a recirculation chamber having an interior...a first outlet...and a second outlet... | The complaint does not identify the specific component(s) of the Green Machine alleged to meet this limitation. | ¶52 | col. 26:65-col. 27:2 |
| a diffuser having a diffuser inlet fluidly coupled to the hopper bottom outlet...and to the first outlet of the recirculation chamber... | The complaint does not identify the specific component(s) of the Green Machine alleged to meet this limitation. | ¶52 | col. 27:3-7 |
| a shaker device positioned at least partially below the diffuser and at least partially above the hopper | The complaint does not identify the specific component(s) of the Green Machine alleged to meet this limitation. | ¶52 | col. 27:8-10 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Evidentiary Question: A central issue will be evidentiary. The complaint's theory appears to rest heavily on the allegation of "copying" by former employees (Compl. ¶23). The key question is what technical evidence Plaintiff will present to prove that the Green Machine actually incorporates each and every element of the asserted claims, as required for a finding of literal infringement.
- Technical Question (’569 Patent): The infringement analysis for the ’569 Patent will require a detailed technical comparison of the fluid circuits. A point of contention will likely be whether the Green Machine contains distinct components that function as a "diffuser" and a "shaker device," and whether they are interconnected in the specific recirculating loop configuration required by claims like 1 and 9.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "recirculation chambers" (’567 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term defines a core component of the system. The claim requires that these chambers "trap the portion of the material that escapes the hopper." The construction of this term, particularly the functional requirement to "trap" and the structural requirements of "internal angled sides and a suction port," will be critical to determining the claim's scope.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification refers to these components as "three recirculation hoppers," which could suggest the term is not limited to a single, specific structure but can encompass various hopper-like chambers designed to catch and recirculate material (’567 Patent, col. 2:60-63).
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses a specific embodiment with features like perforated walls and strategically placed tubes to manage flow between chambers (’567 Patent, Fig. 3, col. 6:30-40). A defendant may argue that the term should be limited to structures incorporating these or similar features, rather than any generic chamber.
The Term: "diffuser" (’569 Patent, Claims 1, 9)
- Context and Importance: The "diffuser" is a key differentiating element of the more advanced system claimed in the ’569 Patent. Infringement hinges on whether the accused device includes a component that meets this definition and is connected in the claimed fluid path.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide a standalone definition, which may support an argument for applying the term’s plain and ordinary meaning—a device that spreads out a fluid flow.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly states what a diffuser is not: it "does not separate...solids and liquids" and "is not a hydro cyclone or centrifuge" (’569 Patent, col. 8:62-65). Figures 5A and 5B show specific embodiments of a box-like structure that spreads slurry over a surface before it reaches the shaker device. A defendant could argue the term is limited to a non-separating, flow-spreading apparatus as depicted.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that the individual defendants, two of whom are inventors of the patented technology, induced infringement by using the "design and specifications of Plaintiff's patented technology" to enable the corporate defendants to build and sell the accused Green Machine (Compl. ¶39, 53). The complaint also pleads contributory infringement for the method claims, asserting the Green Machine is not a staple article of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶40, 54).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendants' continued infringement after receiving actual notice of the asserted patents via Cease and Desist letters, which were sent starting two days after the patents issued (Compl. ¶41-45, 55-59). The allegations regarding the former-employee inventors may be used to argue for pre-suit knowledge and deliberate copying.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: given the complaint's conclusory allegations, can Plaintiff produce sufficient technical evidence—beyond the narrative of copying—to demonstrate that the accused "Green Machine" meets every limitation of the asserted claims on an element-by-element basis?
- A core issue will be one of claim scope: will the court construe key terms like "recirculation chambers" and "diffuser" broadly, or will they be limited to the specific embodiments and functional distinctions (e.g., a "non-separating" diffuser) described in the patent specifications, potentially creating a path for non-infringement?
- A significant question for damages and willfulness will be the role of the inventors: how will the court view the allegations that former employees and inventors on the asserted patent family developed and sold an allegedly infringing "copy" of the technology for a direct competitor?