throbber
Case 6:15-cv-00724 Document 1 Filed 07/31/15 Page 1 of 20 PageID #: 1
`
`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

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket