`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`Civil Action No. 6:15-cv-724
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`
`RAPID COMPLETIONS LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`BAKER HUGHES INCORPORATED,
`BAKER HUGHES OILFIELD
`OPERATIONS, INC., WEATHERFORD
`INTERNATIONAL PLC,
`WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL,
`LLC, WEATHERFORD/LAMB, INC.,
`PEAK COMPLETION
`TECHNOLOGIES, INC., PEGASI
`ENERGY RESOURCES
`CORPORATION, PEGASI
`OPERATING, INC., AND TR
`RODESSA, INC.
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Plaintiff Rapid Completions LLC files this Complaint against Defendants Baker Hughes
`
`Incorporated, Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, Inc., (collectively, “Baker Hughes”),
`
`Weatherford International plc, Weatherford International, LLC, Weatherford/Lamb, Inc.,
`
`(collectively, “Weatherford”), Peak Completion Technologies, Inc. (“Peak”), Pegasi Energy
`
`Resources Corporation, Pegasi Operating, Inc., and TR Rodessa, Inc. (collectively, “Pegasi”) for
`
`patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271 and allege, based on its own personal knowledge with
`
`respect to its own actions and based upon information and belief with respect to all others’
`
`actions, as follows:
`
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`1 of 20
`
`Exhibit 2021
`IPR2016-01517
`
`
`
`Case 6:15-cv-00724 Document 1 Filed 07/31/15 Page 2 of 20 PageID #: 2
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff Rapid Completions LLC is a limited liability company organized and existing
`
`under the laws of the State of Texas, and maintains its principle place of business at 2400
`
`Dallas Parkway, Suite 200, Plano, Texas 75093.
`
`2.
`
`Defendant Baker Hughes Incorporated is a Delaware corporation, and maintains its
`
`principle place of business at 2929 Allen Parkway, Suite 2100, Houston, Texas 77019.
`
`Baker Hughes Incorporated has designated CT Corporation System, 1999 Bryan St., Ste.
`
`900, Dallas, TX 75201 as its agent for service of process.
`
`3.
`
`Defendant Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, Inc. is a Delaware corporation, and
`
`maintains its principle place of business at 2929 Allen Parkway, Suite 2100, Houston,
`
`Texas 77019. Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, Inc. has designated CT Corporation
`
`System, 1999 Bryan St., Ste. 900, Dallas, TX 75201 as its agent for service of process.
`
`4.
`
`Defendant Weatherford International plc is an Irish corporation, and maintains its
`
`principle place of business at Bahnhofstrasse 1, 6340 Baar, Switzerland, CH 6340.
`
`Defendant Weatherford International plc has designated Christina M. Ibrahim Executive
`
`Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, Weatherford International plc,
`
`2000 St. James Place, Houston, Texas 77056 and Jonathan B. Newton, Baker &
`
`McKenzie LLP, 700 Louisiana, Ste. 3000, Houston, Texas 77002 as its agents for service
`
`of process.
`
`5.
`
`Defendant Weatherford International, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company, and
`
`maintains its principle place of business at 2000 St. James Place, Houston, Texas 77056.
`
`Weatherford International, LLC has designated CT Corporation System, 1999 Bryan St.,
`
`Ste. 900, Dallas, TX 75201 as its agent for service of process.
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`2 of 20
`
`Exhibit 2021
`IPR2016-01517
`
`
`
`Case 6:15-cv-00724 Document 1 Filed 07/31/15 Page 3 of 20 PageID #: 3
`
`6.
`
`Defendant Weatherford/Lamb, Inc. is a Delaware corporation, and maintains its principle
`
`place of business at 2000 St. James Place, Houston, Texas 77056. Weatherford/Lamb,
`
`Inc. has designated CT Corporation System, 1999 Bryan St., Ste. 900, Dallas, TX 75201
`
`as its agent for service of process.
`
`7.
`
`Defendant Peak Completion Technologies, Inc. is a Texas corporation and maintains its
`
`principle place of business at 7710 Hwy. 80 West, Midland, Texas 79706. Peak
`
`Completion Technologies, Inc. has designated Timothy W. Johnson, 700 Louisiana St.,
`
`Ste. 4900, Houston, TX 77002 as its agent for service of process.
`
`8.
`
`Defendant Pegasi Energy Resources Corporation is a Nevada corporation, and maintains
`
`its principle place of business at 218 N. Broadway, Ste. 204, Tyler, Texas 75702. Pegasi
`
`Energy Resources Corp. has designated CT Corporation System, 1999 Bryan St., Ste.
`
`900, Dallas, TX 75201 as its agent for service of process.
`
`9.
`
`Defendant Pegasi Operating, Inc. is a Texas corporation, and maintains its principle place
`
`of business at 218 N. Broadway, Ste. 204, Tyler, Texas 75702. Pegasi Operating, Inc.
`
`has designated CT Corporation System, 1999 Bryan St., Ste. 900, Dallas, TX 75201 as its
`
`agent for service of process.
`
`10.
`
`Defendant TR Rodessa, Inc. is a Texas corporation, and maintains its principle place of
`
`business at 218 N. Broadway, Ste. 204, Tyler, Texas 75702. TR Rodessa, Inc. has
`
`designated CT Corporation System, 1999 Bryan St., Ste. 900, Dallas, TX 75201 as its
`
`agent for service of process.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`11.
`
`This is an action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the United
`
`States, 35 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28
`
`U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`3 of 20
`
`Exhibit 2021
`IPR2016-01517
`
`
`
`Case 6:15-cv-00724 Document 1 Filed 07/31/15 Page 4 of 20 PageID #: 4
`
`12.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Baker Hughes, Weatherford, Peak, and Pegasi
`
`(collectively, “Defendants”).
`
`13.
`
`Defendants Baker Hughes, Weatherford, and Peak conduct business and have committed
`
`acts of patent infringement, induced acts of patent infringement by others, contributed to
`
`patent infringement by others, and/or advertised infringing products in this district, the
`
`State of Texas, and in the United States.
`
`14.
`
`Defendant Pegasi conducts business and has committed acts of patent infringement in this
`
`district, the State of Texas, and in the United States.
`
`15.
`
`16.
`
`On information and belief, Defendants each operate at least one office in this district.
`
`On information and belief, Baker Hughes, Weatherford, and Peak transport infringing
`
`products, and or products used to contribute to the infringement of others throughout this
`
`district, and/or they place those products in the stream of commerce with the expectation
`
`that they may be sold, offered for sale, or sold in this forum.
`
`17.
`
`Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400(b) because,
`
`among other things, Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in this district,
`
`Defendants have regularly conducted business in this judicial district, and certain of the
`
`acts complained of herein occurred in this judicial district.
`
`PATENTS-IN-SUIT
`
`18.
`
`The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) duly and legally issued U.S.
`
`Patent Nos. 6,907,936 (“the ’936 Patent”), 7,134,505 (“the ’505 Patent”), 7,543,634 (“the
`
`’634 Patent”), 7,861,774 (“the ’774 Patent”), 8,657,009 (“the ’009 patent”) (collectively,
`
`“the Patents-in-Suit”). Attached as Exhibits A-E.
`
`19.
`
`Rapid Completions is the exclusive licensee for the Patents-in-Suit and possesses all
`
`rights of recovery.
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`4 of 20
`
`Exhibit 2021
`IPR2016-01517
`
`
`
`Case 6:15-cv-00724 Document 1 Filed 07/31/15 Page 5 of 20 PageID #: 5
`
`20.
`
`Rapid Completions incorporates the Patents-in-Suit herein by reference.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`21.
`
`The Patents-in-Suit generally cover methods and apparatuses for oil and gas wellbore
`
`fluid treatments. They describe, inter alia, various packers for sealing portions of the
`
`wellbore and sliding sleeves, which can be opened or closed to control fluid movement
`
`into and out of a tubing string placed in the wellbore.
`
`22.
`
`The Patents-in-Suit also describe various methods for employing these tools in order to
`
`fracture formations and increase oil and gas production. The Patents-in-Suit describe,
`
`inter alia, isolating portions of the wellbore using packers or other isolation methods, and
`
`then opening one or more sliding sleeves using a ball or other opening device to
`
`selectively fracture a portion of a formation (“Sliding Sleeve Fracking Methods”).
`
`23.
`
`The Patents-in-Suit were initially developed and owned by Packers Plus Energy Services
`
`Inc. (“Packers Plus”).
`
`24.
`
`Packers Plus has in the past and currently makes and sells tools and sells and performs
`
`services that practice one or more claims of the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`25.
`
`Packers Plus patents have been mentioned in news articles relating to Packers Plus and its
`
`efforts to protect its intellectual property.
`
`26.
`
`In the early 2000s, former Packers Plus employees Ray Hofman, Leon McIntosh, and
`
`Sloane Muscroft left Packers Plus and began working for Peak.
`
`27.
`
`On information and belief, Messrs. Hofman, McIntosh, and Muscroft were aware and/or
`
`should have been aware of Packers Plus patents, patent applications, and/or efforts to
`
`patent the technology described in the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`28.
`
`The Patents-in-Suit are also available over the Internet through various online resources
`
`such as Google Patents and the U.S. Patent Office website.
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`5 of 20
`
`Exhibit 2021
`IPR2016-01517
`
`
`
`Case 6:15-cv-00724 Document 1 Filed 07/31/15 Page 6 of 20 PageID #: 6
`
`29.
`
`One or more of the Patents-in-Suit and/or patents related to the Patents-in-Suit were cited
`
`as prior art during the prosecution of at least Baker Hughes’ U.S. Patent Nos. 7,325,617;
`
`7,395,856; 7,552,779; 7,650,941; 7,681,645; 7,870,902; 8,613,321; 8,695,716; 8,739,408;
`
`8,770,299; 8,939,222; 8,940,841; 8,944,167; 8,955,603; 9,038,656; US20110187062;
`
`WO2012145506.
`
`30.
`
`One or more of the Patents-in-Suit and/or patents related to the Patents-in-Suit were cited
`
`as prior art during the prosecution of at least Weatherford’s U.S. Patent Nos. 7,114,558;
`
`8,215,411; 8,245,782; 8,245,788; 8,403,068; 8,505,639; 8,522,936; 8,714,272; 8,893,810;
`
`US20040129421.
`
`31.
`
`One or more of the Patents-in-Suit and/or patents related to the Patents-in-Suit were cited
`
`as prior art during the prosecution of at least Peak’s U.S. Patent Nos. 7,267,172;
`
`7,926,571; US20130068475.
`
`32.
`
`Baker Hughes makes, uses, sells, and offers for sale in the United States downhole tools,
`
`packers, sliding sleeves and balls marketed under various names such as FracPoint,
`
`FracPoint EX, FracPoint EX-C, FracPoint Cemented MP Sleeves, FracPoint MP Sleeves,
`
`FracPoint MP Sleeves with DirectConnect Ports, EXPress frac sleeves, EX frac sleeves,
`
`DirectStim sleeves, REPacker, IN-Tallic Frac Balls (“Accused Baker Hughes Products”).
`
`Baker Hughes also makes, uses, sells, and offers for sale in the United States services that
`
`employ these and/or similar tools to fracture stimulate formations marketed under various
`
`names such as FracPoint, FracSur EX, FracPoint EX-C, and DirectStim (“Accused Baker
`
`Hughes Services”). (Collectively, the “Accused Baker Hughes Products and Services”).
`
`33. Weatherford makes, uses, sells, and offers for sale in the United States downhole tools,
`
`packers, sliding sleeves and balls marketed under various names such as ZoneSelect,
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`6 of 20
`
`Exhibit 2021
`IPR2016-01517
`
`
`
`Case 6:15-cv-00724 Document 1 Filed 07/31/15 Page 7 of 20 PageID #: 7
`
`ZoneSelect sleeves, Monobore sleeve, SingleShot sleeve, MultiShift sleeve, MultiShift
`
`Frac Sliding Sleeve, toe sleeve, i-ball, i-ball Multi-zone Fracturing Sleeve, MASS sleeve,
`
`Multi-Array Stimulation Sleeve, Stimulation Ball, ZoneSelect Completion System
`
`Stimulation Ball, SingleShot Stimulation Ball, SingleShot XLC Stimulation Ball,
`
`SingleShot XL Stimulation Ball, SingleShot Q Stimulation Ball, Morphisis, Genisis,
`
`SwellCat, Self Actuated, Fraxis, Fraxsis, ComboFrac, Ares, Ares II (“Accused
`
`Weatherford Products”). Weatherford also makes, uses, sells, and offers for sale in the
`
`United States services that employ these and/or similar tools to fracture stimulate
`
`formations marketed under various names such as ZoneSelect System, ZoneSelect Open
`
`hole, ZoneSelect Completion System, Monobor Frac System, ZoneSelect Monobore Frac
`
`System, ZoneSelect SingleShot Frac System, ZoneSelect MultiShift Frac System,
`
`ZoneSelect Cluster Completion, i-ball system, ZoneSelect i-ball Multi-Zone Fracturing
`
`System, Multi-Array Stimulation Sleeve System, MASS System (“Accused Weatherford
`
`Services”). (Collectively, the “Accused Weatherford Products and Services”).
`
`34.
`
`Peak makes, uses, sells, and offers for sale in the United States downhole tools, packers,
`
`sliding sleeves and balls marketed under various names such as StrataPort, SuperPort,
`
`Impact, Expandable, Cluster Frac Sleeve, IsoPort CS, HydroPort, Trigger TS, Trigger TS
`
`Gen II, Impulse Sleeve, Predator, SwellShark, MonoPak (“Accused Peak Products”).
`
`Peak also makes, uses, sells, and offers for sale in the United States services that employ
`
`these and/or similar tools to fracture stimulate formations marketed under various names
`
`such as Multi-Stage Frac System, Predator Extreme Service Openhole Multistage
`
`Completion System, Predator Openhole System, Expandable Sleeve System, Expandable
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`7 of 20
`
`Exhibit 2021
`IPR2016-01517
`
`
`
`Case 6:15-cv-00724 Document 1 Filed 07/31/15 Page 8 of 20 PageID #: 8
`
`Frac System, Peak Completion IsoPort selective fracturing system (“Accused Peak
`
`35.
`
`36.
`
`Services”). (Collectively, the “Accused Peak Products and Services”).
`
`Baker Hughes and Weatherford also provide pumping services for fracture jobs.
`
`On information and belief, Peak does not provide pumping fracture services. Instead it
`
`relies on others, such as Baker Hughes and Weatherford, to provide pumping services for
`
`wells where it supplies Accused Peak Products and Services.
`
`37.
`
`At least to the extent Baker Hughes or Weatherford provide pumping services for
`
`Accused Peak Products and Services, those actions arise out of the same transaction,
`
`occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences relating to the making, using,
`
`importing into the United States, offering for sale, or selling of the same accused product
`
`or process.
`
`38.
`
`Operators and/or well owners can use the Accused Baker Hughes Products and Services,
`
`the Accused Weatherford Products and Services, and the Accused Peak Products and
`
`Services to perform Sliding Sleeve Fracking Methods.
`
`39.
`
`Baker Hughes has committed and continues to commit acts of infringement under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271 by making, using, offering for sale and/or selling the Accused Baker
`
`Hughes Products and Services.
`
`40. Weatherford has committed and continues to commit acts of infringement under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271 by making, using, offering for sale and/or selling the Accused
`
`Weatherford Products and Services.
`
`41.
`
`Peak has committed and continues to commit acts of infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271
`
`by making, using, offering for sale and/or selling the Accused Peak Products and
`
`Services.
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`8 of 20
`
`Exhibit 2021
`IPR2016-01517
`
`
`
`Case 6:15-cv-00724 Document 1 Filed 07/31/15 Page 9 of 20 PageID #: 9
`
`42.
`
`Pegasi uses infringing products and services in the United States, including the Accused
`
`Baker Hughes Products and Services. (The “Accused Pegasi Operations”).
`
`43.
`
`Pegasi makes and uses the Accused Pegasi Operations to fracture stimulate wells in the
`
`United States, including, for example, its Morse Unit #1-H well.
`
`44.
`
`Pegasi has committed acts of infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271 by making and/or using
`
`the Accused Pegasi Operations.
`
`45.
`
`At least to the extent Baker Hughes provides Accused Baker Hughes Products and
`
`Services for the Accused Pegasi Operations, those actions arise out of the same
`
`transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences relating to the making,
`
`using, importing into the United States, offering for sale, or selling of the same accused
`
`product or process.
`
`46.
`
`Questions of fact common to all defendants will arise in the action.
`
`COUNT ONE: PATENT INFRINGEMENT BY BAKER HUGHES
`
`Rapid Completions incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs as if fully set
`
`47.
`
`forth herein.
`
`48.
`
`As described below, Baker Hughes has infringed and continues to infringe the Patents-in-
`
`Suit.
`
`49.
`
`The Accused Baker Hughes Products and Services meet one or more claims of the
`
`Patents-in-Suit.
`
`50.
`
`Baker Hughes makes, uses, offers to sell, sells and/or imports the Accused Baker Hughes
`
`Products and Services within the United States or into the United States without authority
`
`from Plaintiff.
`
`51.
`
`Baker Hughes therefore infringes the Patents-in-Suit under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`9 of 20
`
`Exhibit 2021
`IPR2016-01517
`
`
`
`Case 6:15-cv-00724 Document 1 Filed 07/31/15 Page 10 of 20 PageID #: 10
`
`52.
`
`Baker Hughes indirectly infringes the Patents-in-Suit by inducing infringement by others,
`
`such as its customers and well owners and operators that perform Sliding Sleeve Fracking
`
`Methods with the Accused Baker Hughes Services. For example, by instructing and
`
`encouraging its customers to perform infringing methods using Accused Baker Hughes
`
`Products.
`
`53.
`
`Baker Hughes further instructs operators and/or well owners how to use such products
`
`and services in a manner that infringes the Patents-in-Suit (e.g., through technical
`
`54.
`
`55.
`
`documentation, instruction, and technical support).
`
`Baker Hughes takes the above actions intending others to infringe.
`
`Baker Hughes induces operators and/or well owners to install tubing strings that include
`
`multiple sliding sleeves.
`
`56.
`
`Baker Hughes induces operators and/or well owners to install tubing strings that include
`
`multiple sliding sleeves and multiple packers, including packers with multiple, spaced
`
`apart packing elements.
`
`57.
`
`Baker Hughes induces operators and/or well owners to install tubing strings that include
`
`multiple sliding sleeves and multiple packers, including packers with multiple, spaced
`
`58.
`
`59.
`
`apart packing elements, in non-vertical sections of an open hole wellbore.
`
`Baker Hughes induces operators and/or well owners to set multiple installed packers.
`
`Baker Hughes induces operators and/or well owners to drop a frac ball into an installed
`
`tubing string to open a first sliding sleeve and/or multiple sliding sleeves.
`
`60.
`
`Baker Hughes induces operators and/or well owners to drop one or more additional frac
`
`balls into an installed tubing string to open one or more additional sliding sleeves.
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`10 of 20
`
`Exhibit 2021
`IPR2016-01517
`
`
`
`Case 6:15-cv-00724 Document 1 Filed 07/31/15 Page 11 of 20 PageID #: 11
`
`61.
`
`Baker Hughes induces operators and/or well owners to fracture stimulate stages through
`
`opened sleeves.
`
`62.
`
`Baker Hughes has actual knowledge of the Patents-in-Suit and knows that the others’
`
`actions, if taken, would constitute infringement of that patent. Alternatively, Baker
`
`Hughes believes there is a high probability that others would infringe the Patents-in-Suit
`
`but has remained willfully blind to the infringing nature of others’ actions. Baker Hughes
`
`therefore infringes the Patents-in-Suit under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).
`
`63.
`
`Baker Hughes indirectly infringes the Patents-in-Suit by contributing to infringement by
`
`others, such as its customers and well owners and operators by making, using, importing,
`
`offering to sell and/or selling within the United States products that contain components
`
`that constitute a material part of the inventions claimed in the Patents-in-Suit, and
`
`components of products that are used to practice one or more processes/methods covered
`
`by the claims of the Patents-in-Suit and that constitute a material part of the inventions
`
`claimed in the Patents-in-Suit. Such components are, for example, the Accused Baker
`
`Hughes Products that are capable of being used for Sliding Sleeve Fracturing Methods.
`
`64.
`
`In the above offering to sell and/or selling, Baker Hughes knows these components to be
`
`especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of the Patents-in-Suit
`
`and that these components are not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for
`
`substantial non-infringing use. Alternatively, Baker Hughes believes there is a high
`
`probability that others would infringe the Patents-in-Suit but has remained willfully blind
`
`to the infringing nature of others’ actions. Baker Hughes therefore infringes the Patents-
`
`in-Suit under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c).
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`11 of 20
`
`Exhibit 2021
`IPR2016-01517
`
`
`
`Case 6:15-cv-00724 Document 1 Filed 07/31/15 Page 12 of 20 PageID #: 12
`
`65.
`
`Baker Hughes’s acts of infringement have caused damage to Rapid Completions. Rapid
`
`Completions is entitled to recover from Baker Hughes the damages sustained by Rapid
`
`Completions as a result of Baker Hughes’s wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at
`
`trial. In addition, the infringing acts and practices of Baker Hughes have caused, are
`
`causing, and, unless such acts and practices are enjoined by the Court, will continue to
`
`cause immediate and irreparable harm to Rapid Completions for which there is no
`
`adequate remedy at law, and for which Rapid Completions is entitled to injunctive relief
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 283.
`
`66.
`
`To the extent that Baker Hughes releases any new model, version, or revision of the
`
`Accused Baker Hughes Products and Services, such instrumentalities meet claims of the
`
`Patents-in-Suit and infringe under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a)-(c) in ways analogous to Baker
`
`Hughes’s current infringement described above.
`
`COUNT TWO: PATENT INFRINGEMENT BY WEATHERFORD
`
`67.
`
`Rapid Completions incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs as if fully set
`
`forth herein.
`
`68.
`
`As described below, Weatherford has infringed and continues to infringe the Patents-in-
`
`Suit.
`
`69.
`
`The Accused Weatherford Products and Services meet one or more claims of the Patents-
`
`in-Suit.
`
`70. Weatherford makes, uses, offers to sell, sells and/or imports the Accused Weatherford
`
`Products and Services within the United States or into the United States without authority
`
`from Plaintiff.
`
`71. Weatherford therefore infringes the Patents-in-Suit under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`12 of 20
`
`Exhibit 2021
`IPR2016-01517
`
`
`
`Case 6:15-cv-00724 Document 1 Filed 07/31/15 Page 13 of 20 PageID #: 13
`
`72. Weatherford indirectly infringes the Patents-in-Suit by inducing infringement by others,
`
`such as its customers and well owners and operators that perform Sliding Sleeve Fracking
`
`Methods with the Accused Weatherford Services. For example, by instructing and
`
`encouraging its customers to perform infringing methods using Accused Weatherford
`
`Products.
`
`73. Weatherford further instructs operators and/or well owners how to use such products and
`
`services in a manner that infringes the Patents-in-Suit (e.g., through technical
`
`documentation, instruction, and technical support).
`
`74. Weatherford takes the above actions intending others to infringe.
`
`75. Weatherford induces operators and/or well owners to install tubing strings that include
`
`multiple sliding sleeves.
`
`76. Weatherford induces operators and/or well owners to install tubing strings that include
`
`multiple sliding sleeves and multiple packers, including packers with multiple, spaced
`
`apart packing elements.
`
`77. Weatherford induces operators and/or well owners to install tubing strings that include
`
`multiple sliding sleeves and multiple packers, including packers with multiple, spaced
`
`apart packing elements, in non-vertical sections of an open hole wellbore.
`
`78. Weatherford induces operators and/or well owners to set multiple installed packers.
`
`79. Weatherford induces operators and/or well owners to drop a frac ball into an installed
`
`tubing string to open a first sliding sleeve and/or multiple sliding sleeves.
`
`80. Weatherford induces operators and/or well owners to drop one or more additional frac
`
`balls into an installed tubing string to open one or more additional sliding sleeves.
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`13 of 20
`
`Exhibit 2021
`IPR2016-01517
`
`
`
`Case 6:15-cv-00724 Document 1 Filed 07/31/15 Page 14 of 20 PageID #: 14
`
`81. Weatherford induces operators and/or well owners to fracture stimulate stages through
`
`opened sleeves.
`
`82. Weatherford has actual knowledge of the Patents-in-Suit and knows that the others’
`
`actions, if taken, would constitute infringement of that patent.
`
` Alternatively,
`
`Weatherford believes there is a high probability that others would infringe the Patents-in-
`
`Suit but has remained willfully blind to the infringing nature of others’ actions.
`
`Weatherford therefore infringes the Patents-in-Suit under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).
`
`83. Weatherford indirectly infringes the Patents-in-Suit by contributing to infringement by
`
`others, such as its customers and well owners and operators by making, using, importing,
`
`offering to sell and/or selling within the United States products that contain components
`
`that constitute a material part of the inventions claimed in the Patents-in-Suit, and
`
`components of products that are used to practice one or more processes/methods covered
`
`by the claims of the Patents-in-Suit and that constitute a material part of the inventions
`
`claimed in the Patents-in-Suit. Such components are, for example, the Accused
`
`Weatherford Products that are capable of being used for Sliding Sleeve Fracturing
`
`Methods.
`
`84.
`
`In the above offering to sell and/or selling, Weatherford knows these components to be
`
`especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of the Patents-in-Suit
`
`and that these components are not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for
`
`substantial non-infringing use. Alternatively, Weatherford believes there is a high
`
`probability that others would infringe the Patents-in-Suit but has remained willfully blind
`
`to the infringing nature of others’ actions. Weatherford therefore infringes the Patents-in-
`
`Suit under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c).
`
`
`
`-14-
`
`14 of 20
`
`Exhibit 2021
`IPR2016-01517
`
`
`
`Case 6:15-cv-00724 Document 1 Filed 07/31/15 Page 15 of 20 PageID #: 15
`
`85. Weatherford’s acts of infringement have caused damage to Rapid Completions. Rapid
`
`Completions is entitled to recover from Weatherford the damages sustained by Rapid
`
`Completions as a result of Weatherford’s wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at
`
`trial. In addition, the infringing acts and practices of Weatherford have caused, are
`
`causing, and, unless such acts and practices are enjoined by the Court, will continue to
`
`cause immediate and irreparable harm to Rapid Completions for which there is no
`
`adequate remedy at law, and for which Rapid Completions is entitled to injunctive relief
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 283.
`
`86.
`
`To the extent that Weatherford releases any new model, version, or revision of the
`
`Accused Weatherford Products and Services, such instrumentalities meet claims of the
`
`Patents-in-Suit and infringe under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a)-(c) in ways analogous to
`
`Weatherford’s current infringement described above.
`
`COUNT THREE: PATENT INFRINGEMENT BY PEAK
`
`87.
`
`Rapid Completions incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs as if fully set
`
`88.
`
`89.
`
`90.
`
`91.
`
`92.
`
`
`
`forth herein.
`
`As described below, Peak has infringed and continues to infringe the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`The Accused Peak Products and Services meet one or more claims of the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`Peak makes, uses, offers to sell, sells and/or imports the Accused Peak Products and
`
`Services within the United States or into the United States without authority from
`
`Plaintiff.
`
`Peak therefore infringes the Patents-in-Suit under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).
`
`Peak indirectly infringes the Patents-in-Suit by inducing infringement by others, such as
`
`its customers and well owners and operators that perform Sliding Sleeve Fracking
`
`-15-
`
`15 of 20
`
`Exhibit 2021
`IPR2016-01517
`
`
`
`Case 6:15-cv-00724 Document 1 Filed 07/31/15 Page 16 of 20 PageID #: 16
`
`Methods with the Accused Peak Services. For example, by instructing and encouraging
`
`its customers to perform infringing methods using Accused Peak Products.
`
`93.
`
`Peak further instructs operators and/or well owners how to use such products and services
`
`in a manner that infringes the Patents-in-Suit (e.g., through technical documentation,
`
`94.
`
`95.
`
`instruction, and technical support).
`
`Peak takes the above actions intending others to infringe.
`
`Peak induces operators and/or well owners to install tubing strings that include multiple
`
`sliding sleeves.
`
`96.
`
`Peak induces operators and/or well owners to install tubing strings that include multiple
`
`sliding sleeves and multiple packers, including packers with multiple, spaced apart
`
`packing elements.
`
`97.
`
`Peak induces operators and/or well owners to install tubing strings that include multiple
`
`sliding sleeves and multiple packers, including packers with multiple, spaced apart
`
`98.
`
`99.
`
`packing elements, in non-vertical sections of an open hole wellbore.
`
`Peak induces operators and/or well owners to set multiple installed packers.
`
`Peak induces operators and/or well owners to drop a frac ball into an installed tubing
`
`string to open a first sliding sleeve and/or multiple sliding sleeves.
`
`100. Peak induces operators and/or well owners to drop one or more additional frac balls into
`
`an installed tubing string to open one or more additional sliding sleeves.
`
`101. Peak induces operators and/or well owners to fracture stimulate stages through opened
`
`sleeves.
`
`102. Peak has actual knowledge of the Patents-in-Suit and knows that the others’ actions, if
`
`taken, would constitute infringement of that patent. Alternatively, Peak believes there is
`
`
`
`-16-
`
`16 of 20
`
`Exhibit 2021
`IPR2016-01517
`
`
`
`Case 6:15-cv-00724 Document 1 Filed 07/31/15 Page 17 of 20 PageID #: 17
`
`a high probability that others would infringe the Patents-in-Suit but has remained
`
`willfully blind to the infringing nature of others’ actions. Peak therefore infringes the
`
`Patents-in-Suit under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).
`
`103. Peak indirectly infringes the Patents-in-Suit by contributing to infringement by others,
`
`such as its customers and well owners and operators by making, using, importing,
`
`offering to sell and/or selling within the United States products that contain components
`
`that constitute a material part of the inventions claimed in the Patents-in-Suit, and
`
`components of products that are used to practice one or more processes/methods covered
`
`by the claims of the Patents-in-Suit and that constitute a material part of the inventions
`
`claimed in the Patents-in-Suit. Such components are, for example, the Accused Peak
`
`Products that are capable of being used for Sliding Sleeve Fracturing Methods.
`
`104.
`
`In the above offering to sell and/or selling, Peak knows these components to be especially
`
`made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of the Patents-in-Suit and that these
`
`components are not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial
`
`non-infringing use. Alternatively, Peak believes there is a high probability that others
`
`would infringe the Patents-in-Suit but has remained willfully blind to the infringing
`
`nature of others’ actions. Peak therefore infringes the Patents-in-Suit under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`271(c).
`
`105. Peak’s acts of infringement have caused damage to Rapid Completions. Rapid
`
`Completions is entitled to recover from Peak the damages sustained by Rapid
`
`Completions as a result of Peak’s wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at trial. In
`
`addition, the infringing acts and practices of Peak have caused, are causing, and, unless
`
`such acts and practices are enjoined by the Court, will continue to cause immediate and
`
`
`
`-17-
`
`17 of 20
`
`Exhibit 2021
`IPR2016-01517
`
`
`
`Case 6:15-cv-00724 Document 1 Filed 07/31/15 Page 18 of 20 PageID #: 18
`
`irreparable harm to Rapid Completions for which there is no adequate remedy at law, and
`
`for which Rapid Completions is entitled to injunctive relief under 35 U.S.C. § 283.
`
`106. To the extent that Peak releases any new model, version, or revision of the Accused Peak
`
`Products and Services, such instrumentalities meet claims of the Patents-in-Suit and
`
`infringe under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a)-(c) in ways analogous to Peak’s current infringement
`
`described above.
`
`COUNT FOUR: PATENT INFRINGEMENT BY PEGASI
`
`107. Rapid Completions incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs as i