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., 12/22/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business in Odessa, Texas, and the alleged infringing activities—including the sale and operation of the accused product—occur within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Sand Titan" sand separator infringes patents related to modular cyclonic separation technology.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves cyclonic separators used in the oil and gas industry to remove sand from well fluids, with a focus on systems that can be adapted to changing flow conditions.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint details a complex history involving the patents' named inventor, Ryan Bowley. It alleges that after assigning all rights to the inventions to Plaintiff EnerCorp, Mr. Bowley's employment was terminated. Subsequently, Defendant Trilogy, whose CEO is also a former EnerCorp manager, allegedly engaged Mr. Bowley to design the accused Sand Titan product. This history forms the basis for Plaintiff's allegations of trade secret misappropriation and knowing, willful patent infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2018-06-26 | Priority Date for ’883 and ’160 Patents |
| 2018-09-26 | Inventor 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 |
| Early 2025 | Alleged deployment of the accused Sand Titan product begins |
| 2025-12-22 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,839,883 - “MODULAR CYCLONE”
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: In oilfield operations, the properties of fluid from a well (e.g., flow rate, viscosity, particle concentration) can change over time. The patent’s background section notes that conventional cyclones are designed for specific conditions, and replacing the entire unit to adapt to changes is "time-consuming and expensive" (’883 Patent, col. 1:21-30).
- The Patented Solution: The invention provides a modular cyclone system, claimed as a "kit," featuring interchangeable components. By providing a "plurality of cyclone inserts" and a "plurality of inlet inserts" with varying geometries, operators can modify the separator’s internal configuration to optimize performance for different well conditions without replacing the entire apparatus (’883 Patent, col. 1:32-52; Abstract). This method of selecting and inserting different components based on operational parameters is a core aspect of the described solution (’883 Patent, col. 7:6-67).
- Technical Importance: This modular approach provides greater operational flexibility and potential cost savings compared to replacing entire cyclone units as well conditions evolve.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶41).
- The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- A cyclone sand separator kit, comprising:
- A cyclone body with an inlet, fluid outlet, and solids outlet.
- A plurality of cyclone inserts with different geometries, configured to be positioned in the cyclone body.
- A plurality of inlet inserts with different geometries, which are selectable based on a well flow condition, are rigid, and include 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”
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Similar to the ’883 Patent, the ’160 Patent addresses the inefficiency of replacing entire cyclone separators when fluid properties change (’160 Patent, col. 1:24-33).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is an assembled "cyclone sand separator" (rather than a kit) that incorporates modularity. The core of the patented solution is the inclusion of a "plurality of inlet inserts having different geometries" which are "selectable" based on factors like the insert's diameter and the specific well flow conditions (’160 Patent, Claim 21). This allows the separator's performance to be tailored to the operating environment by choosing the appropriate inlet insert (’160 Patent, col. 2:27-40; Abstract).
- Technical Importance: The invention provides an adaptable, rather than static, sand separation apparatus, allowing for performance optimization in dynamic oilfield environments.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 21 (Compl. ¶49).
- The essential elements of Claim 21 include:
- A cyclone sand separator, comprising:
- A cyclone body with an inlet, fluid outlet, and solids outlet.
- A plurality of inlet inserts having different geometries, configured to be positioned in the inlet.
- The inlet inserts are rigid, unmoving once attached, and selectable based at least partially on the insert's diameter and a well flow condition.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The "Sand Titan" sand separator device and associated services offered by Defendant Trilogy, LLC (Compl. ¶24).
- Functionality and Market Context: The Sand Titan is a cyclonic separator system for sand management in oil and gas operations (Compl. ¶43, ¶51). The complaint alleges the Sand Titan is marketed as having a "revolutionary internal design" that "adapts to changing well conditions" (Compl. p. 17). A key feature highlighted is the inclusion of "two distinct inlets A and B—each paired to a specific flow regime," which operators can "select or adjust... on the fly" to optimize performance for low-rate, moderate-flow, or peak production phases (Compl. p. 17). The complaint references a video from Defendant that demonstrates the structure and operation of the device (Compl. ¶24). An annotated screenshot from this video identifies the main components of the Sand Titan, including the cyclone body, inlet, fluid outlet, and solids outlet (Compl. p. 15).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’883 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A cyclone sand separator kit, comprising: a cyclone body having an inlet, a fluid outlet, and a solids outlet... | The Sand Titan is marketed and sold as a complete cyclone sand separator system for oil and gas operations and includes a cyclone body, an inlet, a fluid outlet, and a solids outlet. | ¶43, ¶44 | col. 7:48-55 |
| a plurality of cyclone inserts configured to be positioned in the cyclone body... wherein the cyclone inserts include different geometries... | On information and belief, Trilogy provides a plurality of cyclone inserts with different geometries (e.g., different inner diameters, lengths, angles) that can be chosen to configure the device for different well flow conditions. | ¶45 | col. 8:3-10 |
| a plurality of inlet inserts having different geometries, wherein the inlet inserts are each configured to be positioned at least partially in the inlet, wherein the inlet inserts are selectable depending on a well flow condition... and wherein the inlet inserts each include a flange for removable connection of the inlet inserts into the inlet. | The Sand Titan includes multiple inlet inserts that are selectable based on well conditions to optimize performance. A marketing brochure states each unit includes "two distinct inlets A and B" for different flow regimes. The complaint provides an annotated image showing a flanged inlet insert. | ¶46, ¶47 | col. 9:1-11 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A primary question may be whether the Sand Titan, as sold, constitutes a "kit." The analysis could focus on whether Defendant supplies a collection of interchangeable components (satisfying the claim) or sells a single, pre-configured unit with adjustable settings (which may raise a non-infringement argument).
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges on "information and belief" that Trilogy provides a "plurality of cyclone inserts" (Compl. ¶45). The case may turn on factual evidence demonstrating whether Defendant actually supplies multiple, distinct cyclone inserts with different geometries, as required by the claim.
’160 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 21) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A cyclone sand separator, comprising: a cyclone body having an inlet, a fluid outlet, and a solids outlet... | The Sand Titan is a cyclone sand separator that operates in oil and gas applications. A labeled diagram in the complaint identifies the cyclone body, inlet, fluid outlet, and solids outlet. | ¶51, ¶52 | col. 13:58-65 |
| a plurality of inlet inserts having different geometries, wherein the inlet inserts are each configured to be positioned at least partially in the cyclone body in the inlet, wherein the inlet inserts are rigid and unmoving once attached... and wherein the inlet inserts are selectable... upon a diameter... and a well flow condition. | The Sand Titan product line includes a plurality of inlet inserts with different geometries, such as varying diameters, which are selectable to optimize performance for specific flow rates and operating conditions. The complaint includes an annotated visual highlighting the changing diameters within an inlet insert (Compl. p. 20). | ¶53, ¶54 | col. 14:1-9 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: Does the accused product's use of multiple fixed inlets (e.g., "Inlet A" and "Inlet B") that can be selected via valving or other means meet the claim limitation of "a plurality of inlet inserts... selectable based at least partially upon a diameter"? The interpretation of "selectable" will be crucial.
- Technical Questions: The analysis will depend on the specific technical implementation of the Sand Titan's adaptability. A key factual question is whether the system uses physically distinct and interchangeable inserts or a single, more complex insert with multiple flow paths. The marketing materials stating operators can "select or adjust inlet paths" could support Plaintiff's theory (Compl. p. 21).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "a cyclone sand separator kit" (’883 Patent, Claim 1)
Context and Importance: This term is foundational to the infringement allegation against the ’883 Patent. Defendant may argue it sells an assembled product, not a "kit" of parts. The construction will determine whether providing a configurable system with multiple components falls within the claim's scope.
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the invention as a "cyclone sand separator kit that includes a cyclone body ... and a plurality of cyclone inserts" (’883 Patent, col. 1:33-36), suggesting the "kit" is defined by the collection of parts provided for a common purpose, whether assembled or not.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent also discloses a "method for assembling a cyclone separator" (’883 Patent, col. 1:53) and a flowchart for assembly steps (’883 Patent, Fig. 8), which could be cited to argue that a "kit" implies a set of unassembled components intended for user assembly.
The Term: "selectable" (’883 Patent, Claim 1; ’160 Patent, Claim 21)
Context and Importance: This term is central to the modularity aspect of both patents. The dispute will likely focus on whether "selectable" requires the physical swapping of different inserts or if it can also cover choosing between pre-installed flow paths within a single device. Practitioners may focus on this term because the accused product is described as allowing operators to "select or adjust inlet paths on the fly" (Compl. p. 17).
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent claims recite that inserts are "selectable depending on a well flow condition" (’883 Patent, Claim 1), a functional description that could encompass choosing between different built-in flow paths designed for different conditions.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 of the ’883 Patent requires that the inlet inserts "each include a flange for removable connection," which may suggest that "selectable" entails a physical removal and replacement process, rather than adjusting valves or flow directors.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Trilogy induces infringement by "promoting, advertising, and instructing customers on the use of the Sand Titan in a manner that infringes," including through instructional videos, technical specifications, and on-site services (Compl. ¶56, ¶62, ¶68).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges both pre-suit and post-suit willfulness. Pre-suit knowledge is alleged based on Trilogy's hiring of the patents' inventor, Ryan Bowley, to design the accused product, with Bowley having allegedly advised Trilogy that its prior designs would infringe (Compl. ¶25-26). It is also alleged that Trilogy's CEO, a former EnerCorp manager, knew of EnerCorp's IP and assignment agreements (Compl. ¶27). Post-suit knowledge is based on the filing of the complaint itself (Compl. ¶62, ¶68).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: does Trilogy's commercial offering of the configurable "Sand Titan" system meet the ’883 Patent’s claim limitation of a "kit," or is there a fundamental mismatch between the claimed invention and the accused product's form as sold?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: does the Sand Titan's method of "adapting" to well conditions—allegedly through selectable "Inlet A" and "Inlet B"—fall within the scope of claims requiring a "plurality of... inserts having different geometries" that are "selectable"?
- The allegations regarding the involvement of the patents' named inventor in the design of the accused product will create a central focus on knowledge and intent. Discovery regarding what Trilogy knew from its work with Mr. Bowley, and when, will likely be dispositive for the claims of willful infringement and trade secret misappropriation.