DCT
7:25-cv-00448
Enercorp Engineered Solutions LLC v. Trilogy LLC
Key Events
Amended Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: EnerCorp Engineered Solutions, LLC (Delaware) and EnerCorp Engineered Solutions, Inc. (Alberta, Canada)
- Defendant: Trilogy, LLC (North Dakota)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Mitby Pacholder Johnson, PLLC
- Case Identification: 7:25-cv-00448, W.D. Tex., 12/06/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business in the district, conducts business in the district, and the infringing activities occur within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Sand Titan cyclonic sand separator infringes patents related to modular cyclone technology, and further alleges trade secret misappropriation and tortious interference with contract centered on Defendant's hiring of Plaintiff's former engineer and inventor of the patents-in-suit.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns cyclonic separators used in the oil and gas industry to remove sand from well fluids, with the patented invention focusing on a modular design that allows components to be changed to adapt to varying flow conditions.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the sole inventor of the patents-in-suit, Ryan Bowley, was a former employee of Plaintiff who had assigned all invention rights to Plaintiff. It is alleged that after his employment was terminated, Defendant engaged Mr. Bowley to design the accused Sand Titan product, utilizing confidential information and patented concepts belonging to Plaintiff. The complaint also alleges that Defendant's CEO is a former general manager of Plaintiff and was aware of the contractual obligations binding Mr. Bowley.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2017-04-01 | Ryan Bowley begins employment with Plaintiff's predecessor |
| 2018-06-26 | Priority date for ’883 and ’160 Patents |
| 2018-09-26 | Ryan Bowley assigns rights in the invention to Plaintiff |
| 2022-02-10 | Ryan Bowley's employment with Plaintiff is terminated |
| 2023-12-12 | U.S. Patent No. 11,839,883 issues |
| 2024-11-19 | U.S. Patent No. 12,145,160 issues |
| 2025-06-16 | Trilogy CEO publishes article about Sand Titan development |
| 2025-09-01 | Technical article co-authored by Ryan Bowley is published |
| 2025-12-06 | Complaint filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,839,883 - “MODULAR CYCLONE” (Issued Dec. 12, 2023)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: In oil and gas operations, the properties of fluid from a well (e.g., flow rate, viscosity, particle size) can change over time. The patent’s background section notes that when these properties change, the existing cyclone separator may need to be replaced, which can be "time-consuming and expensive" (’883 Patent, col. 1:26-29).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a "cyclone sand separator kit" with a modular design that allows for the modification, rather than wholesale replacement, of the separator to handle different well conditions (’883 Patent, col. 1:32-34). The solution provides a plurality of interchangeable internal components—specifically "cyclone inserts" and "inlet inserts"—with different geometries that can be selected and installed within a common cyclone body to optimize performance for a given fluid property (’883 Patent, col. 1:41-52; FIG. 3).
- Technical Importance: This modular approach provides operational flexibility and cost savings by allowing operators to adapt a single separator to a well's changing output, rather than requiring multiple, fixed-configuration devices.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶43).
- Claim 1 requires a cyclone sand separator kit comprising:
- A cyclone body with an inlet, a fluid outlet, and a solids outlet.
- A plurality of cyclone inserts configured to be positioned in the cyclone body, where the inserts have different geometries (e.g., different inner diameters, lengths, angles).
- A plurality of inlet inserts with different geometries, configured to be positioned in the inlet, selectable based on well flow conditions, rigid, and including a flange for removable connection.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
U.S. Patent No. 12,145,160 - “MODULAR CYCLONE” (Issued Nov. 19, 2024)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the application leading to the ’883 Patent, this patent addresses the same problem of cyclone separators being ill-suited for the changing fluid properties of a well, leading to inefficient and costly replacements (’160 Patent, col. 1:22-34).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a cyclone sand separator with a plurality of interchangeable inlet inserts. These inserts have different geometries and are designed to be rigid, unmoving once attached, and "selectable based at least partially upon a diameter of the inlet insert and a well flow condition" (’160 Patent, col. 11:15-23; Abstract). This allows an operator to optimize the fluid velocity and flow path into the cyclone body by choosing the appropriate insert for current well conditions (’160 Patent, FIG. 3).
- Technical Importance: This design focuses on the critical role of the fluid inlet in cyclonic separation efficiency, providing a modular way to control and condition the incoming fluid stream for optimal performance.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 21 (Compl. ¶51).
- Claim 21 requires a cyclone sand separator comprising:
- A cyclone body with an inlet, a fluid outlet, and a solids outlet.
- A plurality of inlet inserts with different geometries, configured to be positioned in the cyclone body inlet.
- The inlet inserts are further required to be rigid and unmoving once attached, and selectable based at least partially upon a diameter of the inlet insert and a well flow condition.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentality is the "Sand Titan" sand separator device and associated services offered by Trilogy, LLC (Compl. ¶3, ¶25).
Functionality and Market Context
- The Sand Titan is described as a cyclonic sand separator for oil and gas operations (Compl. ¶44). The complaint alleges it is marketed as an "Adaptive Cyclone Sand Separator Engineered for Real-World Well Dynamics" (Compl. p. 17). A key accused feature is its alleged adaptability to changing well conditions, which is purportedly achieved through "selectable inlet paths" for different flow regimes, such as "low-rate, early-flow," "mid-stage, moderate-flow," and "peak production" (Compl. p. 17). An image from a Trilogy brochure states that "Operators can select or adjust inlet paths on the fly, empowering them to fine-tune performance" (Compl. p. 17).
- The complaint identifies the Sand Titan as Trilogy's "flagship product for sand management and sand separation" (Compl. ¶25).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’883 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a cyclone body having an inlet, a fluid outlet, and a solids outlet... | The Sand Titan is alleged to comprise a cyclone body with an inlet for mixed fluid, a fluid outlet at the top, and a solids outlet at the bottom. The complaint includes a labeled diagram from a Trilogy video identifying these components (Compl. p. 15). | ¶45 | col. 3:42-53 |
| a plurality of cyclone inserts configured to be positioned in the cyclone body...wherein the cyclone inserts include different geometries... | The complaint alleges on "information and belief" that the Sand Titan's cyclone inserts have different geometries (e.g., inner diameters, lengths) allowing the device to be configured for different well flow conditions. | ¶46 | col. 8:56-65 |
| a plurality of inlet inserts having different geometries...selectable depending on a well flow condition...wherein the inlet inserts each include a flange for removable connection... | The Sand Titan is alleged to have a plurality of selectable inlet inserts to accommodate different well conditions. This is supported by marketing materials describing "two distinct inlets - A and B - each paired to a specific flow regime" (Compl. p. 17). The complaint alleges these inserts include a flange for removable connection. | ¶47-48 | col. 9:1-11 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether Trilogy's offering of a separator with different operational modes (e.g., "Inlet A," "Inlet B," "A+B") constitutes a "kit" as required by the claim preamble.
- Technical Questions: The complaint's allegation for the "plurality of cyclone inserts" is made on "information and belief" (Compl. ¶46). A key factual dispute will be whether the accused Sand Titan actually contains or is supplied with multiple, physically distinct, and interchangeable cyclone inserts with different geometries, or if it has a single, fixed internal configuration.
’160 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 21) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a cyclone body having an inlet, a fluid outlet, and a solids outlet... | The Sand Titan is alleged to be a cyclone sand separator that includes a cyclone body, an inlet to receive mixed fluid, a fluid outlet, and a solids outlet. | ¶53 | col. 3:52-60 |
| a plurality of inlet inserts having different geometries...each configured to be positioned at least partially in the cyclone body in the inlet... | The complaint alleges the Sand Titan product line includes multiple inlet inserts with different geometries, which are positioned in the inlet. Marketing materials state the product includes "two distinct inlets" for different flow conditions (Compl. p. 21). | ¶54-55 | col. 11:15-18 |
| wherein the inlet inserts are rigid and unmoving once attached in the cyclone body... | It is alleged that the inlet inserts are rigid components that do not move with respect to the cyclone body during operation. | ¶54 | col. 11:18-20 |
| wherein the inlet inserts are selectable based at least partially upon a diameter of the inlet insert and a well flow condition. | The complaint alleges operators can select from the plurality of inserts to optimize performance based on operating parameters and flow rates, and that different geometries relate to differences in diameters. A diagram from a Trilogy video shows an inlet insert with varying diameters (Compl. p. 20). | ¶54 | col. 11:20-23 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The dispute may focus on the meaning of "plurality of inlet inserts." Defendant may argue that its "selectable inlet paths" are achieved through an integrated valve system or other mechanism, rather than by providing physically separate, interchangeable "inserts" as depicted in the patent.
- Technical Questions: A key evidentiary question will be how the Sand Titan technically achieves its "adaptive" functionality. Does it require an operator to physically install one of a plurality of different insert components, or is the selection of "Inlet A" versus "Inlet B" an operational choice made via external controls on a single, integrated unit?
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
For the ’883 Patent:
- The Term: "a cyclone sand separator kit"
- Context and Importance: This term appears in the preamble of asserted claim 1. Whether the accused Sand Titan, as sold and operated, constitutes a "kit" will be a threshold issue for infringement. Practitioners may focus on this term because if the accused product is sold as a single integrated unit, Defendant may argue it does not meet the "kit" limitation.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the invention as providing a plurality of interchangeable inserts for a cyclone body, which implies a collection of parts intended to be assembled or configured by the user (’883 Patent, col. 1:41-52). A court could find that providing a single device with a set of selectable, swappable components satisfies the ordinary meaning of "kit."
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The term "kit" often implies a collection of separate parts sold together in a package for assembly. Defendant could argue that a fully assembled separator, even with modular internal parts, is not a "kit."
For the ’160 Patent:
- The Term: "a plurality of inlet inserts"
- Context and Importance: This term is the core of the asserted infringement theory for the ’160 patent. The entire dispute may hinge on whether the accused Sand Titan's "selectable inlet paths" (Compl. p. 17) are found to be the claimed "plurality of inlet inserts."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent claims require the inserts to be "selectable" based on well conditions (’160 Patent, col. 11:20-23). Plaintiff may argue that any mechanism providing multiple, distinct, and selectable inlet geometries within the cyclone body meets the functional requirements of this term, regardless of whether the components are physically separate before installation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s figures, such as the exploded view in FIG. 3, depict the inlet insert (120) as a discrete, physically separate component that is installed into the inlet (102) (’160 Patent, FIG. 3). Defendant may argue that the term must be construed to mean physically separate and interchangeable hardware components, not integrated, selectable flow paths.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Trilogy induces infringement by providing customers with "instructional materials, including videos and technical specifications and services, that teach and encourage the use of the Sand Titan in an infringing manner" (Compl. ¶57, ¶63, ¶69).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges Trilogy had pre-suit knowledge of its infringement. The basis for this allegation is the hiring of the patents' inventor, Mr. Bowley, who allegedly used his knowledge of Plaintiff's technology to design the accused product for Trilogy (Compl. ¶27). The complaint further alleges that Mr. Bowley informed Trilogy that its initial, pre-Bowley design would infringe Plaintiff's patents (Compl. ¶26), and that Trilogy's CEO, a former manager at Plaintiff, knew of Mr. Bowley's contractual obligations to assign inventions to Plaintiff (Compl. ¶28-29).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of technical implementation versus claim scope: Does the accused Sand Titan's "adaptive" functionality, which allows operators to "select or adjust inlet paths on the fly," rely on a "plurality of inlet inserts" and a "plurality of cyclone inserts" as defined by the patents? The case will likely involve a deep dive into the specific mechanical design of the Sand Titan to determine if it aligns with the claimed modular architecture.
- A second central issue will be the impact of the former employee narrative: The complaint weaves a detailed story of alleged trade secret misappropriation and breach of contract involving the patents' inventor. A key question will be what evidence, beyond the complaint's allegations, connects the inventor's knowledge and work for the defendant to the specific design of the accused product, as this will be critical for the claims of willful infringement and trade secret misappropriation.
- A third question will be one of definitional interpretation: Can a fully assembled, albeit internally modular, device be considered a "kit" as required by claim 1 of the ’883 patent? The answer will depend on claim construction and could be dispositive for infringement of that patent.