Case 7:15-cv-00097-DAE Document 18 Filed 09/15/15 Page 1 of 7
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MIDLAND DIVISION
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 7:15-cv-00097
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`Finalrod IP, LLC and R2R and D, LLC d/b/a
`Superod,
`
`
`
` Plaintiffs,
`
`
`v.
`
`John Crane, Inc. and John Crane Production
`Solutions, Inc.,
`
`
`
` Defendants.
`
`Plaintiffs, Finalrod IP, LLC (“Finalrod”) and R2R and D, LLC, d/b/a Superod
`
`(“Superod,” collectively “Plaintiffs”), bring this action against Defendants John Crane, Inc.
`
`(“JCI”) and John Crane Production Solutions, Inc. (“JCPS,” collectively “Defendants”) and
`
`through this Original Complaint show the following:
`
`I. THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff, Finalrod IP, LLC, is a Texas limited liability company, having a place of
`
`business at 610 South Main Street, Big Spring, Texas 79720.
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff R2R and D, LLC d/b/a Superod is also a Texas limited liability company,
`
`having a place of business at 610 South Main Street, Big Spring, Texas 79720.
`
`3.
`
`John Crane, Inc. is a Delaware corporation, headquartered at 6400 W. Oakton
`
`Street, Morton Grove, IL and which may be served with process through its registered agent, CT
`
`Corporation System at 1999 Bryan Street, Suite 900, Dallas, Texas 75201. JCI has a registered
`
`place of business in Texas at 4001 Fair Drive, Pasadena, Texas 77507. Upon information and
`
`belief, JCI is the parent company of and controls JCPS.
`
`Petitioners' Exhibit 1025
`John Crane v. Finalrod
`IPR2016-01786
`
`Page 1 of 7
`
`

`
`Case 7:15-cv-00097-DAE Document 18 Filed 09/15/15 Page 2 of 7
`
`4.
`
`John Crane Production Solutions, Inc. has a regular and established place of
`
`business in this judicial district at 6308 West Interstate 20, Midland, Texas 79706. JCPS may be
`
`served with process through its registered agent, CT Corporation System at 1999 Bryan St., Suite
`
`900, Dallas, TX 75201.
`
`II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`5.
`
`This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35, Section 1,
`
`et. seq. of the United States Code. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action
`
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`
`6.
`
`On information and belief, Defendants, either directly or through intermediaries,
`
`make, use, sell or offer to sell products in this judicial district that infringe the ’162 patent and/or
`
`the ’951 patent, identified below.
`
`7.
`
`Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400(b).
`
`III. PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`8.
`
`Plaintiff, Finalrod, is the owner of United States Patent No. 8,851,162 (“the ’162
`
`patent”), titled “Sucker Rod Apparatus and Method.” A true and correct copy of the ’162 patent,
`
`issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on October 7, 2014, is attached hereto
`
`as Exhibit A. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 282, the ’162 patent is presumed valid and enforceable.
`
`9.
`
`Plaintiff Superod is the exclusive licensee of the ’162 patent.
`
`10.
`
`The ’162 Patent relates generally to a novel design for a fiberglass sucker rod. A
`
`sucker rod is used to increase the efficacy of sub-surface pumps in instances where the pressure
`
`in an oil reservoir is not sufficient to lift the oil to the surface. Individual sucker rods are grouped
`
`together to form a rod string, and the connection of successive rods has been the source of
`
`continued developmental efforts in the industry. The ’162 patent discloses a fiberglass rod with
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST
`AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`7:15-cv-00097
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 7
`
`

`
`Case 7:15-cv-00097-DAE Document 18 Filed 09/15/15 Page 3 of 7
`
`connectors on each end that is an improvement over prior designs and methods. Specifically,
`
`each connector has a rod-receiving receptacle with an open end, a closed end, and axially spaced
`
`annular wedge shaped surfaces such that the compressive forces between the rod and the
`
`respective connector are defined by the shape of the wedged surfaces.
`
`11.
`
`On information and belief, Defendants are and have been making, using, offering
`
`for sale and/or selling within the United States, products and/or methods that fall within the
`
`scope of one or more of the claims of the ’162 patent. Specifically, Defendants have promoted,
`
`through a video presentation and white paper, their “standard design of an end fitting” that
`
`infringes one or more of the claims in the ’162 patent. A true and correct copy of the Defendants’
`
`paper is attached hereto as Exhibit B. On information and belief, Defendants have been making,
`
`using, selling, and offering for sale products based upon the same content detailed in the paper
`
`and video.
`
`12.
`
`Accordingly, on information and belief, Defendants are infringing the ’162 patent
`
`and are thus liable for infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).
`
`13.
`
`Plaintiff, Finalrod, is the owner of United States Patent No. 9,045,951 (“the ’951
`
`patent”), titled “Sucker Rod Apparatus and Method.” A true and correct copy of the ’951 patent,
`
`issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on June 2, 2015, is attached hereto as
`
`Exhibit C. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 282, the ’951 patent is presumed valid and enforceable.
`
`14.
`
`15.
`
`Plaintiff Superod is the exclusive licensee of the ’951 patent.
`
`The ’951 patent also relates generally to a novel design for a fiberglass sucker
`
`rod. Specifically, the ’951 patent discloses end fitting with a wedge system formed in the
`
`interior, the wedge system comprising an outer wedge portion and an inner wedge portion. The
`
`outer wedge portion has a triangular configuration and is configured to distribute compressive
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST
`AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`7:15-cv-00097
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 7
`
`

`
`Case 7:15-cv-00097-DAE Document 18 Filed 09/15/15 Page 4 of 7
`
`force in the sucker rod proximate the open end. The inner wedge portion also has a triangular
`
`configuration and is configured to distribute compressive force in the sucker rod proximate the
`
`closed end. The inner wedge triangular configuration differs from the outer wedge triangular
`
`configuration in order to distribute compressive force in the sucker rod at the end fitting, wherein
`
`relatively more compressive force is distributed proximate the closed end than proximate the
`
`open end.
`
`16.
`
`On information and belief, Defendants are and have been making, using, offering
`
`for sale and/or selling within the United States, products and/or methods that fall within the
`
`scope of one or more of the claims of the ’951 patent. Specifically, Defendants have promoted,
`
`through a video presentation and white paper, their “standard design of an end fitting” that
`
`infringes one or more of the claims in the ’951 patent. A true and correct copy of the Defendants’
`
`paper is attached hereto as Exhibit B. On information and belief, Defendants have been making,
`
`using, selling, and offering for sale products based upon the same content detailed in the paper
`
`and video.
`
`17.
`
`Accordingly, on information and belief, Defendants are infringing the ’951 patent
`
`and are thus liable for infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).
`
`18.
`
`Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs for damages that are adequate to compensate
`
`for the infringement, under 35 U.S.C. § 284, which shall in no event be less than a reasonable
`
`royalty.
`
`19.
`
`Defendants and Superod are direct competitors in the fiberglass sucker rod
`
`market. On information and belief, Defendants have had knowledge of the claims of the ’162
`
`patent since February 14, 2013, the publication date of the application which became the ’162
`
`patent.
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST
`AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`7:15-cv-00097
`
`
`
`Page 4 of 7
`
`

`
`Case 7:15-cv-00097-DAE Document 18 Filed 09/15/15 Page 5 of 7
`
`20.
`
`On information and belief, Defendants have had knowledge of the claims of
`
`the ’951 patent since April 17, 2014, the publication date of the application which became
`
`the ’951 patent.
`
`21.
`
`Defendants’ infringement is done with knowledge of both the ’162 patent and
`
`the ’951 patent and Plaintiffs’ interests therein. Defendants’ infringement has therefore been
`
`willful, entitling Plaintiffs to enhanced damages and attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
`
`22.
`
`Because Defendants’ and Superod compete directly in the fiberglass sucker rod
`
`market, Defendants’ infringement of the ’162 and ’951 patents has caused and will continue to
`
`cause irreparable damage to Superod’s business, including but not limited to a loss of goodwill
`
`and reputation and a loss of market share and price erosion. There is no adequate remedy at law
`
`for Superod’s irreparable damage, and it will continue unless Defendants’ infringement is
`
`preliminarily and permanently enjoined by this Court.
`
`IV. JURY DEMAND
`
`23.
`
`Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs hereby
`
`demand a jury trial on all issues and claims so triable.
`
`V. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`24. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment and seek the following relief:
`
`a) judgment in Plaintiffs’ favor that Defendants have infringed the ’162
`patent;
`
`b) judgment in Plaintiffs’ favor that Defendants have infringed the ’951
`patent;
`
`c) a preliminary injunction enjoining the aforesaid acts of infringement by
`Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, subsidiaries and
`attorneys, and those persons acting in concert with Defendants, including
`related individuals and entities, customers, representatives, OEMs, dealers,
`distributors and/or importers;
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST
`AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`7:15-cv-00097
`
`
`
`Page 5 of 7
`
`

`
`Case 7:15-cv-00097-DAE Document 18 Filed 09/15/15 Page 6 of 7
`
`d) a permanent injunction enjoining the aforesaid acts of infringement by
`Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, subsidiaries and
`attorneys, and those persons acting in concert with Defendants, including
`related individuals and entities, customers, representatives, OEMs, dealers,
`distributors and/or importers;
`
`e) judgment and an order requiring Defendants to pay Plaintiffs their
`damages, costs, expenses, pre-judgment interest, and post-judgment
`interest for Defendants’ infringement of the ’162 patent, as provided under
`35 U.S.C. § 284;
`
`f) judgment and an order requiring Defendants to pay Plaintiffs their
`damages, costs, expenses, pre-judgment interest, and post-judgment
`interest for Defendants’ infringement of the ’951 patent, as provided under
`35 U.S.C. § 284;
`
`g) judgment and an order that this case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285
`and requiring Defendants to pay Plaintiffs’ reasonable attorneys’ fees; and
`
`h) for any such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and
`proper.
`
`
`
`DATED: September 15, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
`
`
`
`/s/Terry B. Joseph
`Guy E. Matthews
`TX Bar No. 13207000
`Terry Joseph
`TX Bar No. 11029500
`MATTHEWS, LAWSON, MCCUTCHEON, &
`JOSEPH, PLLC
`2000 Bering Drive, Suite 700
`Houston, Texas 77057
`TEL: (713) 355-4200
`FAX: (713) 355-9689
`gmatthews@matthewsfirm.com
`tjoseph@matthewsfirm.com
`
`and
`
`A. Harper Estes
`TX Bar No. 00000083
`Lynch, Chappell & Alsup, P.C.
`
`7:15-cv-00097
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST
`AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`6
`
`Page 6 of 7
`
`

`
`Case 7:15-cv-00097-DAE Document 18 Filed 09/15/15 Page 7 of 7
`
`The Summit, Suite 700
`300 North Marienfeld
`Midland, Texas 79701
`TEL: (432) 683-3351
`FAX: (432) 683-2587
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that the foregoing document has been filed on this 15th day of September,
`
`2015, pursuant to the electronic filing requirements of the United States District Court for the
`
`Western District of Texas, which provide for service on counsel of record in accordance with the
`
`electronic filing protocols in place.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/Terry B. Joseph_________
`Terry B. Joseph
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST
`AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`7:15-cv-00097
`
`
`
`Page 7 of 7