i
`
`..
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`..
`
`I
`
`.
`
`.
`
`,.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`“SIP”:
`cod
`Dblrbl clllk
`Mlfllnd Mot
`
`. CAUSEPD. (IV-449“
`
`HALLIBURTON ENE“?!
`SERVICES, INCL: and HAM-BURTON
`GROUP CANADA
`
`.' v.
`
`Ham
`
`PAcxm PLUS ENERGY SERVICES,
`mm; mm nus ENERGY
`smms, NC. USA; macan
`. pws may saw: (mu)
`‘ LIMH'EDPAM'NBRSHIP:
`DANIELmm;
`mmmm; ma
`1cm muzu
`Wm.
`
`ummwwmnmmnmnuanum
`
`IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
`
`MIDLAND COUNTY, TEXAS
`
`JURYTRIAL DEMANDS!)
`
`2381b JUDICIAL DISTRICT
`
`myroummnmmon
`TO'I'HBHONORABLBJUDGBOFSAIDCOURT
`'
`
`.
`
`COMES NOW WWW ENERGY SERVICES, INC. and WIRED"
`
`c3qu CANADA memmmmumm nusmnm'
`
`mu, rams PLUS m0? SERVICES. ago. USA. menus PLUS
`Immav sanvms cusA.) an'an rum-mm, DANIEL mama, mm
`
`'
`
`.
`
`
`
`
`KRABBBN and mum PALmT. and 1b: cm of man would mym1»
`'Counua‘bllowa:
`'
`'
`'
`'
`
`.
`
`'
`
`I.
`pummva
`
`'
`
`I
`‘
`i
`I
`
`.
`
`Dlsoovu'yhamxluwnitis mdpmmwmwela «mm
`1.
`'oftha Taxis Rule. ofCMl Pmoedm.
`WHIva
`
`1 of 36
`1 of 36
`
`Ex. 2040
`IPR2016-01506
`IPR
`
`

`

`
`
`I].
`
`PARTIES
`
`2.
`
`Plalntifl'HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC. is a Delaware corporation
`
`' and is duly authorized to conduct business in the State of Texas. Hallibunon Energy Services,
`Inc. has a principal and home office in Houston, Teens.
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiff HALLIBURTON GROUP CANADA is a parmership organized under
`
`'
`
`the laws ofCansdu and has a principal place ofbusiness in Calgary. Alberta. Hulliburton Group
`
`Canada is an affiliate ofl-lalliburbon Energy Services. Inc.
`
`4.
`
`Defendant PACKERS PLUS ENERGY SERVICES. INC. (hereinafier "Fuckers
`
`Plus Canada") is a federal corporation organized under the laws ofCansda. Packers Plus Canada
`
`has a principal place of business in Canada at 1420. 31 l - 6‘“ Avenue SW, Calgary, Alberta T2P
`
`3H2. and may be served through one its principals at the above address.
`
`.5.
`
`Defenth PAU<ERS PLUS ENERGY SERVICES.
`
`INC. USA (herelnufier
`
`“Pocket: Plus USA") is a Delaware corporation and is registered to conduct business in Texas.
`
`_ Packers Plus USA has I principal place of business at 2047 Commerce. Midland, Texas 79703.
`
`and may be saved through its registered agent, C.'I‘. Carp. Systems at [021 Main Street. Suite
`1150, Houston. Texas 77002.
`I
`v
`I
`6.
`Defendant PACKERS PLUS ENERGY SERVICES (U.S.A.) LIMITED
`
`PARTNERSHIP (hereinlfier "Packers Plus Texas") is a Texas Limited Partnership that had a
`
`principal place of business at 2047 Commerce. Midland. Texas 79703. Upon infimmltion md
`belief. Packers Plus Teams was dissolved on January 6. 2005. Packers Plus Texas may be served
`
`through one of its partners. including DANIEL T'l-IEMIG. PETER KRABBEN or KENNETH
`PAL'I‘ZAT, located at the addresses set forth in paragraphs 7—9 below.
`
`“Mel"M100In
`
`I
`
`2
`
`
`
`2 of 36
`20f 36
`
`Ex. 2040
`IPR2016-01506
`IPR
`
`

`

`Defendant DANIEL THEMIG is an individual who resides in Canada, and may
`
`be served at his place ufbusinexs at 1420. 311 — 6"| Avenue SW. Calgary, Alberta T2P 3H2.
`
`8.
`
`Defendant PETER KRABBEN is an individual who resides in Canada, and may
`
`be served at his place oflausinese at 1420, 311 ~ 6“ Avenue sw. Calgary, Alberta up 3112.
`
`9.
`
`Defendant KENNETH PALTZA‘!‘ Is an individual who resides in Canada. and
`
`‘
`
`V
`
`may be served a! his piece ofbusil'lees at 1420, 31 l - 6" AVenue SW, Calgary. Alberta T2P 3H2.
`
`On or around May 1. 2004. Defendant DANIEL THBMIG executed an affidavir
`10.
`the! states, in pertinent part: "in 2003, fennel operations [of Packers Plus Canada] were set up
`
`and an office opened in Midland. Texas . . . . At that time we incorpermd a Delaware company
`
`as a wholly owned subsidiary of Packers Plus [Canada] (called Pucker: Plus Energy Services,
`
`Inc. USA! hereinafter ‘Packers Plus USA‘) and a Texas limited partnership (Packers Plus Energy
`
`Senrieee LLP, hereinefier “Packers Plus LLP’) in which the partners are Packers Plus USA,
`
`myself directly and Peter Kmbben and Ken Panza: beneficially. The ownership and annual of
`
`all three entities are ultimmly the same."
`
`(See Exhibit l—Afidavll of Dan Themig at
`
` 7.
`
`PII'Bngph 8).
`
`i
`
`ll.
`
`Defendants PACKERS PLUS ENERGY SERVICES, INC., PACKERS PLUS
`
`' ENERGY SERVICES. NC. USA and PACKERS PLUS ENERGY SERVICES ,(‘USAJ
`
`l..lMlTBD PARTNERSHIP are collectively referred to as "Packers Plus." Defendants DANIEL
`
`THEMlG. PETER KRABBEN and KENNETH PALTZAT are collectively referred to as
`
`‘Themlg at :21."
`
`sm—vmeeuom
`
`-
`
`-
`
`‘1
`
`'
`
`3
`
`
`
`3 of 36
`30f 36
`
`Ex. 2040
`IPR2016-01506
`IPR
`
`

`

`III.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`12.
`This Court has Jurisdiction over Packers Plus and Themig er oi. as they regularly
`engage in business in Texas. Further. this Court has jurisdiction our Packers Piuslend Thernig
`
`s: alabecause the unlawful activities of Packers Plus and Themig e! at. occurred, in part, in
`
`Texas. All three entities that comprise Packets Plus have conceded that this Court has
`jurisdiction over them. The amount in controversy exceeds the minimum jurisdictional limits of
`the Court.
`
`13.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction over Mr. Themig. in port, become he has made regular
`
`and numerous business trips to Texas, at least some of which substantially relate to the subject
`
`matter ofthis litigation. Mr. Themig has spent significant amounts of time in Texas conducting
`
`business since 2001. At least some of these trips, if not the majority, involved efforts to sell the
`
`Rookseai line of packers that have certain festth which were conceived by Mr. Themis while
`
`‘
`
`2
`
`
`
`he was employed by minors but not disclosed to Plahrtifl‘s. Additionally. upon infant-mien
`
`' and belief". at term some of these trips involved efforts to sell products that embodied other
`confidential information owned by Plaintlfils. These sales efforts in Tunis rewited in harm to
`Plaintiffs through loss of sales of products and services. Thus. at least some of Mr. Themig’s
`
`trips to Team are substantially related to the claims in this litigation.
`
`Mr. Themig was also aware of and took.part in Packers Plus's efi‘orts to market in
`14.
`Texas the Rockseai
`line of packers and other products embodying confidential infomstlon
`
`owned by Piaintiffi. Mr. Themig was the President ofPaekers Plus USA, which was the general
`
`partner ofPackers Plus Texas. Packers Pius Tms had an established place of business in Texas
`
`from around 2003 until around January 2005. Packers Plus USA has had an established piece of
`monomeric
`4
`
`4 of 36
`4 of 36
`
`Ex. 2040
`IPR2016-01506
`IPR
`
`

`

`1 :’ an,
`
`business in Texas since at least January 2005. Packers Plus USA is engaged in the business of
`
`selling the Rockseel line of packers and other products embodying misappropriated confidential
`
`information owned by Plaintiilh. Pockets lilus Texas was engaged in the business of selling the
`
`Rocksenl lineofpackers and other products embodying misappropriated confidential infomatlcn _
`until it ceased operstions around January 2005. Mr. Themig participated in the management and
`
`operations ofPackers Plus USA and Packers Plus Texas and took part in directing their activities
`
`'
`
`in Terms. Mr. Themig was also It member ofthe ‘hmmsgement team" that directed all of Packers
`
`Plus‘s Texas operations. Mr. Themig directed Packers Plus's activities toward Texas while
`
`knowing that one or more product lines being marketed in Texas were unlawfully developed
`
`through the use cfHalllburton Energy Services. lnc.'s confidential information. Thus. this Court
`
`has specific jurisdiction over Mr. Thcrnig based on Mr. Themig’s owu contacts with Texas and
`
`‘ based on those of Packers Pius. which are attributable to Mr.
`
`'l‘hcmig by virtue of his
`
`participation in is management and his actual and/or constructive knowledge that one or more
`
`Packers Plus. product lines were created through unluwfisl activities. At least some of those
`
`Texas contacts involve marketing and soles ofproducts developed through the Imlawful activities
`
`complained of in this litigation Based on the above and other facts. this Court has both‘gcncral
`
`and specificjurlsdiction over Mr. ’I'hanig.
`
`is.
`
`This Court has Jurisdiction over Mr. Pellzct because he has made regular and
`
`numerous business trips to Te'xas, at least some ofwhioh substantially relate to the subject matter
`
`.of this lltigstion. Mr. Peltut has spent significant amounts oftime in Testes conducting business
`
`since at least 2004. At least some ofthese flips, if not the majority, involved efforts to sell the
`
`Rockseal line of packers. Additionally, uporl inlbrmation end beliel} at least some of these trips
`
`‘ involved efiorts to sell products that embodied other confidential
`Monuments V
`'
`'
`
`inibrlnation owned by
`V
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`5 of 36
`50f 36
`
`Ex. 2040
`IPR2016-01506
`IPR
`
`

`

`through loss ofsales ofproducts and services. Thus, at least some ofMr. Paltzat's trips to Texas
`
`' are substantially related to the claims in this iitiflation.
`
`16.
`
`Mr. Paitzet was also aware ofand took part in Packers Plus‘s efforts to market in
`
`information
`line of packers and other products embodying confidential
`Texas the Rockseal
`owned by Plaintiffs. Mr. Palm was the Secretary and Treasurer of Packers Plus USA. Mr.
`
`.Paltzat participated in the management and operations of Pickers Plus _USA and Packers Plus
`Texas and took part in directing their activities in Tamas. Mr. Paltzat was also a member of the
`
`‘finanagement team" that directed all of Packers Plus's Texas operations. Mr. Palm: directed
`
` Plaintifflr. These sales efforts in Texas resulted in harm to Halliburtcn Energy Services. Inc.
`
`Packers Plus's activities toward Texas while knowing that one or more product lines being
`
`marketed in Texas were unlewfitily developed through the use ofconfidential information owned
`
`has specific jurisdiction over Mr. Palmt based on Mr. Peltzat’s
`by Plaintiffis. Thus, this
`own contacts with Texas and based on those of Packers Plus, which are attributable to Mr.
`
`Paltzat by virtue of his participation in its management and his actual end/or constructive
`
`knowledge that one or more Packers Pius product lines were created through unlawfirl activities.
`
`At least some of those contacts involve marketing and sales of products developed through the
`
`unlewfitl activities complained of in this litigation. Based on the above and other facts, this
`
`Court has both general and specific jurisdiction over Mr. Palm.
`
`I7.
`
`Mr. Krabben was aware of and took part in Packers Plus’s efi'orta to market in
`
`Texas the Rockst line of packets and other products embodying confidential
`
`information
`
`owned by Plaintiffs. Mr. Krabben participated in the management and operations of Packers
`
`Plus USA md Packers Plus Texas and took part in directing their activities in Texas. Mr.
`
`Krabben was a meniber of the ‘fioanogesnent team" that directedrall of Packers Pius’s Testes
`
`lflfiflmmmlb _
`
`‘
`
`‘
`
`6
`
`
`
`6 of 36
`60f 36
`
`Ex. 2040
`IPR2016-01506
`IPR
`
`

`

`' or more product lines being marketh in Texas were unlawfully developed through the use of
`
`confidential information owned by Plaintiffs. Thus, this Court has both general and specific
`
`' jurisdiction over Mr. Krabberl based on Packers Plus‘s contacts with Texas, which are
`
`attributable to Mr. Krabben by virtue ofhls participation in its management and his actual and/or
`
`consuuotlve knowledge that one or more Packers Pitts product lines were created through
`
`unlawful activities. At least some of those conch involve marketing and sales of products
`
`deVeloped through the unlawiirl activities complained of in this litigation.
`
`1%.
`
`Mr. 'I‘hernig was at all relevant times President and a director of Packers Pius
`
`USA. Mr. Panza! was at all relevant times the Secretary. Treasurer. and a director of Packers
`
` operations. Mr. Krubben directed Packers Plus's activities toward Texas while knowing that one
`
`Plus USA. Mr. Krnbben was at all relevant times. a director of Packers Pius USA. For the
`reasons set forth in Port IVE, Packers Plus. USA and Thernig er a. were not separate entities.
`Packers Pius USA was a sham corporation. and Themig at at, as officers and directors of
`
`Packers Pius USA, are personally liable for its wrongful conduct. The acts ofPackers Plus USA
`
`in Texas are also attributable to 'I‘hemig or at. through their status as ofiicors and directors of
`Pockets Pius USA. Therefore, Paclters Pius USA's concession that this Court possesses
`
`jurisdiction over it is also imputed to Themlg er a1. Further, Packers Plus USA’s acts in Texas
`are attributable to Themig er all. such that this Court hasjurisdiction ovor them individually.
`lrl
`
`' particular. Packers Plus USA, acting both as general partner of Packers Plus Texas and on its
`
`own behalf; maintained on ongoing business in Texas marketing, selling, and servicing products
`
`sufficient to vest this Court with general jurisdiction over it. Also, Packers Plus USA's specific
`
`‘ contacts with the State of Texas involving sales ofproducts that are the subject ofthis lawsuit are
`
`sufi-ieient to vest this Court with specific jurisdiction over it for all causes of
`
`asserted in
`
`slmlnmmto'
`
`-
`
`_.
`
`7
`
`
`
`7 of 36
`70f 36
`
`Ex. 2040
`IPR2016-01506
`IPR
`
`

`

` this lawsuit. Those contacts and activities are Ittrlbutsble to 'l‘hemig er al. for in psrsonam
`
`a sealing device, o setting device, a gripping device
`smutmoolo
`
`(typically) on inside passage for
`s
`
`8 of 36
`80f 36
`
`Ex. 2040
`IPR2016-01506
`IPR
`
`'
`
`jurisdiction purposes. providing this Court with inmmjurisdiction over Themig er a1.
`
`19.
`
`Venue is proper in Midland County. Texas pursuant to § 15.002 of the Texas
`
`Civil Practice and Remedies Code. because: (a) it is 1 county in which all or a substantial part of
`
`the events giving rise to the claims poem-red; and (b) two ofthe entities collectively referred to as
`
`Packers
`
`mainteinvsnd/or maintained a principal place of business in Midland County, Texas.
`IV.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`20.
`
`Heiliburton Energy Services. Inc. is I. leader in the energy services industry and
`
`ofi'ers a broad array of products and services to upstream oil and gas customers worldwide.
`
`Within the various business segments of Helllburton Energy Services. inc.
`
`is the Production
`
`Optimization segment that tests. measures and provides means to manage and/or improve well
`
`production once a well is drilled and, in some cases, sfier it has been producing. The Production
`Opt-immith segment consists of Completions and Reservoir Optimization services, including
`
`well completion equipment, well testing, service tools and reservoir monitoring.
`
`2i.
`
`Hsiliburton Energy Services, Ine.'s vast experience and investment in research
`
`and development has established it as s leading innovator in the oilfield service sector, Including
`
`the well completions industry. Hellibtu'ton Energy Services, Inc.. through its predecessor
`
`companies and companies that have been acquired. has been Involved in the well completions
`
`' business for over duty (80) years. Among Haiiihunon Energy Services, ine.'s technological
`
`advances in well completions operatiorts are its designs and solutions that involve the use of
`
`downhole packers and related equipment. in general, it pocket is a downhole tool that consists of
`
`
`
`

`

`In addition to other uses, packers are used to seal the annular space between
`
`the production tubing and well casing (or bordrole) while allowing produced fluids (1.8., oil and
`
`' gas) to flow through the casing perforations end into the production tubing. Hailibunon Energy
`' Services. Inc's pecker designs allow customers to optimize well performance.
`
`22.
`
`Helliburmn Energy Services, Inc.’s vast experience in the oilfield service Sector is
`
`due.
`
`in part, to various mergers and acquisitions over the past several decades. Helliburton
`
`Energy Services. Inc.'s corporate structure has undergone various changes due to these mergers
`
`and acquisitions. Relevant to this lawsuit. Helliburton Energy Services, Inc. acquired Dresser
`
`Industries. Inc.
`
`in 1998. At the time of acquisition, Dresser Industries. Inc. had a well-
`
`esubllshed reputation as is successful oilfield service company.
`
`Included within Dresser
`
`Industries. Inc. was a division celled Guiberson or Guibersoo AVA. For brevity, Helliburton
`
`Energy Services. Inc. and the companies acquired by it in the 1998 acquisition, as well as its
`
`predecessor compr and efliiieted companies («.35. Halliburton Group Canada). are
`
`hereinafter collectively referred to as Halllburuon, unless expressly noted below.
`
`23.
`
`As a leading innovator in the oilfield service sector. Helliburton has taken
`
`extensive measures to protect its confidentch and proprietary information, including its trade
`
`secrets. To this end. Helliburton has implemented and strictly followed various policies and
`
`procedures to protect
`
`such information.
`
`For example,
`
`I-ialliburton’s engineering and
`
`manufacturing documents are labeled with “Confidential” legends and not publicly disseminated.
`
`Further, Helllburton requires that many of its employees (3.3:. managers. engineers, field
`
`technicians) sip: confidentiality agreements, which prevent the employees from disclosing (to.
`
`third-parties) Hulliburton's confidential and proprietary information. Halliburton’s efi'orts to
`
` downhole fluids.
`
`
`
`maintain the seaecy of Its innovative equipment and solutions are vital to Hallibunon’s
`
`"WINNIWIO V
`
`9
`
`9 of 36
`90f 36
`
`Ex. 2040
`IPR2016-01506
`IPR
`
`

`

`.- 4:.‘(1
`
`continued business success in the oilfield industry, and thus. Halllburton cerefirlly adheres to its
`
`policies. Without
`
`the ability to maintain control DVfli'
`
`its confidential and proprietary
`
`informstion, Hallihurton would lose much of its competitive advantage and would not be able to
`
`reap the benefits ofits substantial capital investment in research and development.
`A.
`
`THEMJG ETA!»
`
`24.
`
`Thernlg er al. are all former employees of one or more Hallibutton entities.
`
`These individuals held various positions while employed at Halliburtcn. Mr. Themig was
`
`employed by Helliburton for over fifteen years, and at the time of his resignation, he held the
`
`position ofAcoount leader. Mr. Themig was employed by Halliburton in both Canada and the
`United States. Mr. Krabben Was employed by Haliihm'ton for over twenty years, and at the time
`of his resignation. he held the position of Technical Advisor. Mr. Palm was also employed by
`
`Halliburton for over twenty years. At the time of his resignation, Mr. Paitzet held the position of
`
`_ Service Coordinator. All three individuals worked in Helliburton's well completions business.
`
`_
`
`25.
`
`Due to their positions at Halliburton. Themig er a1. had access to certain
`
`Halliburton confidential and proprietary information. More particularly, while employed by
`
`Halliburton. nomig er al. had subslantiol access to, at least. the following confidential and
`
`proprietary information:
`(a) Helliburton's technical product manuals:
`(b) Hulliburton’s
`engineering and machine drawings; (c) Hallibumn's meta-is] specifications: (d) Halliburton's
`
`engineering standards; (e) Helliburlon's tool design and development strategies; (i) Hollibm‘ton's
`operational and project protocols and guidelines; (a) I-isllibcrton’s customer service methods.
`
`files. reports and related specific customer project documents; (h) Halliburton’s project and
`
`product pricing schedules: (i) Helliburton's projembbidding practices; and 0) various other
`
`sumnmooro
`
`‘
`
`I
`
`'
`
`r
`
`I
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`10 of 36
`10 of36
`
`Ex. 2040
`IPR2016-01506
`IPR
`
`

`

`
`
`‘ confidential infomation concerning the employment responsibilities of Themig e! at. Each of
`
`the above categories consists of sensitive infonnation that Haliibw-ton has protected as
`
`confidential and proprietary. This information is used by Haliiburton in its business and gives
`
`Halliburton a distinct business advantage over its competitors.
`.
`26.
`In firrtherance of Helliburton‘s corporate policies to protect its confidential and
`proprietary information, Themig at a]. were requhd to execute various Hailiburton intellectual
`
`property and confidentiality agreements (hereinafier “Ami-nerds"). The following language is
`
`representative ofthe provisions set forth in the Agreements:
`
`1.
`
`-
`
`2.
`
`I shall promptly disclose to Dresser Industries. Inc. or its designee any and all
`inventions, developments or innovations (hereinafter referred to as “said
`inventions"), whether
`patentable
`or
`unpatenurhle,
`eopyrlghtable
`or
`uncopyrightable. made or conceived by me. either solely or jointly with
`others: (a) during the term of my employment that relate to, or arise out of.
`any deVelaprnents, services or products 01; Or pertain to the business of
`Dresser Industries, inc. or any of its subsidiaries or divisions and (b) for a
`period of six (6) months alter termination of my employment said inventions
`that relate to, or arise out of. any developmch services or products that l
`have been concerned with during the term ofmy employment.
`
`i hereby assign and agree to assign to Dresser Industries, lnc., its successors
`and assigns, my entire right. title and interest in andto any ofsaid inventions.
`#I'D
`
`i shall not, during the term of my employment or thereafior, disclose to others
`5.
`' or use any confidential technical or business Information belonging either to
`- Dresser Industries, Inc. or to a customer or client of Dresser Industries, lnc.’s
`except as authorized in writing. respectively, by Dresser Industries, Inc or
`such customer or client. “Confidenlisl technical or other confidential business
`information” means any information which I learn or originate during the
`course of my employment. regardless of whether it is written or otherwise
`tangible that (a) is not generally available to the public and (it) gives one who
`uses it an advantage over competition.
`
`6. Upon termination of my employment. i shall surrender to Dresser Industries,
`inc. any and all things such as drawings. manuals. documents. photography.
`computer programs and the like (including all copies thereof) that l have in
`
`,
`g
`
`I
`
`srwymmeoro
`
`’
`
`'
`
`'
`
`'
`
`_
`
`1 l
`
`11 of 36
`11 of 36
`
`Ex. 2040
`IPR2016-01506
`IPR
`
`

`

`division or subsidiarythereof.
`
`.
`no or any
`
`Thus. Themig er a]. owed Hulliburton at
`
`least the following obligation! pursuant to the
`
`Agroenwnts:
`
`(a) men: er «I. must promptly disclose to Hellihumn all inventions made by
`
`"i‘hemig et a1. during their Hallian employment; (b) 'l‘hemig er 01. must promptly disclose to
`Heiilburton nil
`inventions made by Titania er
`within six months of resigning from
`
`Haliiburton, ifsuch inventions relate to their work at Heiltburton; (c) Themig er a1. must assign
`
`the inventions listed in items (a) and (b) to Hailiburton; (d) 'i‘hemig er a1. shall not disclose (to
`
`third-parties) Helliburlou'e confidential and proprietary information; (e) Themig er al. shall not
`
`I use Heilibunon's confidential and proprietary information outside of Heliiburton‘s business; and
`
`(i) upon resignation, 'i'hemig at at. were required to surrender all of Heliiburton’s confidential
`
`and proprietary information. Mr. Krabben signed such Agreements in 1979 and i994. and Mr.
`
`Psitut signed such Agreements in l978 and 1994. Upon information and belief, Mr. Themlg
`
`signed such an Agreement in at least the 1990’s. Mr. Themig also signed such an Agreement on
`
`January 31. 1980. These Agreements between Halliburton (a Terms—based company) and
`
`'I'hernig em]. are a further basis for this Court to exercise personal jurisdiction over Themig
`eta].
`
` my possession relating to the business of Dresser Industries, I
`
`27.
`
`Mr. Themig was hired by Hailiburton to invent technology to satisfy the needs of
`
`its customers. Mr. Themig's position as a member of Helliburbon’s sales team required him to
`
`develop innovative ways to satisfy the needs of Heliiburton's customers. Pursuant to the
`
`understanding between Mr. Themlg and Heliiburton, Mr. Themig was obligated to disclose any
`
`ideas that he concolved while employed by Heiliburton to Helliburton and to assign any rights he
`might have in such ideas to Haiiiburtmt. In fiaifiiling this obligation, Mr. 'i‘hemig would bring
`
`his ideas to Halliburton’s engineering department for timber refinement and/0r reduction to
`MIMI/109100"
`,
`,
`s
`12
`
`
`
`12 of 36
`12 of36
`
`Ex. 2040
`IPR2016-01506
`IPR
`
`

`

`Mr. Muserofl to allow Mr. Moserofc to assist Mr. Thanlg in reducing Mr. 'I'hemig's conception
`1 to practice. Mr. Themig was also a named inventor on at least three patents assigned
`Halllbtmon directed to inventions conceived by Mr. Themig while he was employed by
`
`Hailibunon. Those three patents are US. Patent Nos. 6,244,340; 5,117,913; and 4,942,925. Mr.
`
`Themig assigned these patents to Helliburton pursuant to the understanding of the parties that
`
`Mr. 'I’hemig was hired to invent tools for Halliburton customers.
`
`B.
`
`FORMATION OF PACKERS PLUS
`
` practice. For example, Mr. Thanig conceived offinilibunon’s Wizard packet and disclosed it to
`
`28.
`
`Alter working for Hallibunon for many years and signing the Agreements.
`
`Themig er al. resigned from Hoilibutton in 2000 and formed Packers Plus Canada. As described
`
`in detail below, Packers Plus Canada and the other later-formed Packers Plus entities. as well as
`
`‘I‘lwmig e! 01., have engaged in unlawth activities that are harmful to Haliiburton’s business.
`
`These unlawful activities
`
`include breach of the above-quoted eorm‘aetuel provisions.
`
`misappropriation of trade secrets and tertious interference with contract. as well as other illicit
`
`' conduct.
`
`29.
`
`As the founders of Packers Plus Canada, Themig et al. actively reeruited various
`
`former Halliburton employees, including Sloane Muscth According to Mr. Themig’s affidavit.
`
`Mr. Muscnofi was the first employee at Packets Plus Canada.
`
`(See Exhibit 1 at paragraph 3).
`
`Mr. Muscrofi was hired by Packers Plus Canada as I design engineer. Id. Upon infommion and
`
`belief, Mr. Muserofi's duties and responsibilities as a design engineer included designing peekers
`
`and preparing drawings for the packers. Prior to joining Packets Plus Canada. Mr. Musoroi’c
`
`worked It Holliburton for several years as a design engineer. Lilae Themig 3:01.. Mr. Muscrofi
`
`stmtlloozwio
`
`'
`
`_
`
`‘
`
`I 13
`
`,1,a.:
`
`
`
`13 of 36
`13 of36
`
`Ex. 2040
`IPR2016-01506
`IPR
`
`

`

`and proprietary inibnnation.
`
`In 1997. Mr. Muses-on also signed a Hulliburtnn intellectual
`
`- property and confidentiality egreemmt.
`
`30.
`
`As set forth in Mr. Themig‘s affidavit, Packers Plus Canada is an oilfield service
`
`company that focuses on well completion technology and related services. Alter founding the
`
`Canadian company. Themig e: at. established their Packers Pius Tcxse business in Midland in or
`around 2003. Packers Plus Texas. as well as Pacifiers Plus USA, also focuses on the well
`
`completions business. Because of their focus, Packers Pius Canada and the other Packers Plus
`
`entities are in direct competition with Helliburton in the Well completions business, including
`
`direct competition in the marketplace for packers. Mr. 'l‘hemlg's eflidcvit makes clear that he
`
`and Messrs. Krabhen end Paltzet effectively control Packers Plus Texas, as well as the other
`
`‘ Packers Plus entities.
`
`(See Exhibit 1 at par-emit 8). Similarly, the affidavit makes clear that
`
`each corporate entity slmres and cross-licenses technology.
`
`' 31.
`
`Bued on publier available information. Packets Plus' business includes many
`
`varieties of downhole packers.
`
`including retrievable. seal bore and open hole packers.
`
`Additionally, Packers Pius ofi‘ers production necessaries and service tools that complement their
`
` worked in Hallibumn's well completions business and had access to Haliiburton’s confidential
`
`' packer products.
`
`C.
`
`DE-li'IHiII)A_N'I‘S| UNLAWFUL CONDUCT
`32.~ Afier forming Packers Plus 'rms, all of the swim Plus entities brought a
`
`lawsuit in Midland styled Packers Plus Energy Services, at at. v. Peak Completion Tuimolagies.
`
`Inn, er a1. (Cause No. CV44605, in the District Court of Midland County, Texas. 238‘“ Judicial
`
`District).
`
`In connection with the! lawsuit. Hallibumn was served with e subpome dunes teem
`
`shamanism
`
`.
`
`I
`
`14
`
`
`
`14 of 36
`14 of36
`
`Ex. 2040
`IPR2016-01506
`IPR
`
`

`

`it was around that time that Helilbunon stoned to learn about
`
`the unlawful activities ofPackers Plus and Themlg er a1.
`33.
`
`More specifically, swans! months uflor being served with the subpoma.
`
`Hulliburton became aware of deposition testimony given by Mr. Muscrofl in connccflon with the
`
`. Paekérs Plus/Peak Completion lawsuit. As described above, Mr. Muscmfl was a fenner
`
`engineer at Hulliburton end was hired by Packers Plus to design its packers. Mr. Musowft's
`
`testimony reveals the egregious nature of the illicit conduct of Packers Plus and Themig el (11.,
`
`including theft and use ofHalllburiou confidential drawings-
`
`When you lefi Hailian did you have possession on any of your
`computers or discs of CD's or other similar medium, possession of any
`Helllbumn or Guiberson mechanical drawings?
`
`Yes, I did.
`
`3*!
`
`Did you use any of those drawings efiu you lefi Hallibunon?
`I believe so, yes.
`
`Q.
`
`P"
`
`?P?’O?P?’P
`
`p
`
` on or about September 30. 2004.
`
`For what purpose?
`
`I was instructed to by my employers.
`
`And which employers?
`
`Packers Plus.
`
`What drawings and what instructions?
`
`It’s probably too numerous to so into here, but generally .
`0!!
`
`. ..
`
`And who is it that told you to take mechanical drawings fi-om Halliburlm?
`
`l was told at the meeting in December of 1999 that I should try and take
`anything that they wouldn't notice being Haliibumn.
`
`5Iseammme
`
`IS
`
`
`
`15 of 36
`15 of36
`
`Ex. 2040
`IPR2016-01506
`IPR
`
`

`

` And who told you that?
`
`The above testimony was given by Mr. Muserofi on September l5. 2004.
`
`34.
`
`Mr. Museum's deposition testhnony illustrates the unlawful activities of'i'hemig
`
`e! (1!. and Packers Plus with respect to their treatmem of Heliiburton‘s confidential and
`
`preprietary information. Mr. Mumfl: was employed by Packers Plus as an engineer to design
`
`tools and prepare drawings for Packers Plus, and at all releva times. was acting within the
`
`'
`
`scope of his employment for the benefit oi‘Packers Plus. Themig er al., as founders. principals.
`
`directors, officers and employees of Packers Plus,
`
`instructed. condoned and advocated Mr.
`
`I Muserofi’s retention and use offlailibunon’s confidential and proprieter information, including
`
`Halliburton's engineering and mechanical drawings. The directions given by Themiz er «I. to
`Mr. Muscrofi were egregious to the point of instructing Mr. Muscrofi to confiscate“ many
`llMl‘llio
`'
`‘
`
`16 of 36
`16 of36
`
`Ex. 2040
`IPR2016-01506
`IPR
`
`rare
`
`‘9
`
`are?
`
`E"
`
`o.
`
`A.
`
`Mr. 'l‘lunnig.
`
`And who else was present when he told you that?
`Mr. Pelizet end Mr. Krebben. It!
`
`Did you take any drawings ofi-hlliburton packers?
`
`I believe the! would have been in there, yes.
`
`And do you have any Helliblnen pecker drawings in your eompumr now?
`
`Probably, yes.
`
`Did you use those Halllbumn packer drawing: during your employment
`with Packers Plus?
`
`Yes. sporadically. i guess.
`
`it.
`
`Well, did you share those drawings with anyoneelse?
`
`With the principals efPuckers Plus. yes.
`
`
`
`

`

` Helliburton documents as possible. A: further illustrated by Mr. Muscrofi's testimony, the
`
`with pricing information). _Ha.lllbl.lrtnn knows that Packers Plus has possession of the above-
`
`. described doerunente because Packers Plus produced those documents to M Completion in
`
`connection with the Packers Plus/Peak Completion lawsuit, and the then of the documents was
`
`subsequently brought to HalliburhOn's attention by counsel for Peak Completion.
`
`36.
`
`Paragraphs 33—35 establish that Packers Plus. through its employees, omcers. and
`
`directors, has unlawfully acquired, retained and utilized various categories of Hailiburton
`
`confidential and proprietary infirmietion. Up'on information and belief, Peokers Pius has
`
`incorporated Heilibunon confidential and proprietary information
`SIM-Nihilile
`.
`
`at
`
`least
`
`the following
`17
`
`17 of 36
`17of36
`
`Ex. 2040
`IPR2016-01506
`IPR
`
`stolen confidential and proprietary information was used hi Packers Pius’ business. Upon
`information and belief and as further described below, Packers Plus' unlawful use of
`
`Hailiburton's confidential and proprietary information includes the incorporation of that
`
`information into the features of various Packers Plus' product lines.
`
`35.
`
`in addition to the Hailiburton drawings that were stolen by Mr. Muserott and
`
`unlawfully used by Packers Plus. sh ortiy before filing this lawsuit Hailiiburton became aware that
`
`Packers Plus in possession of other Hellihmton confidential and proprietary infonnntion. The 1
`
`additional
`
`information that was stolen fi-om Hailihurton includes: (a) certain Hsliiburton
`
`technical product manuals (e.g.. Guiberson 6-6 and (3-77 Packer Technical Manuela); (b)
`
`Haliiburton's design development strategies; (c) Helliburtun’s operational end project protocols
`and guidelines (3.3., packer mmllation plans); (d) Halliburton's customer service methods. files.
`
`reports and related specific customer project docmnents (e.g., Various case histories, customer
`
`usage histories, ill: test