throbber
Gregory F. Wesner
`Jeffrey W. Reis
`LANE POWELL PC
`1420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4200
`Seattle, Washington 98111
`Telephone: (206) 223-7000
`Facsimile: (206) 223-7107
`wesnerg@lanepowell.com
`reisj@lanepowell.com
`
`(pending pro hac vice admission)
`
`
`
`
`
`Randy J. Cox
`BOONE KARLBERG P.C.
`201 West Main St., Suite 300
`P.O. Box 9199
`Missoula, Montana 59807-9199
`Telephone: (406) 543-6646
`Facsimile: (406) 549-6804
`rcox@boonekarlberg.com
`
`John C. Herman
`Peter M. Jones
`ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
` & DOWD LLP
`3424 Peachtree Road, N.E., Suite 1650
`Atlanta, Georgia 30326
`Telephone: (404) 504-6500
`Facsimile: (404) 504-6501
`jherman@rgrdlaw.com
`pjones@rgrdlaw.com
`
`(pending pro hac vice admission)
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Adelos, Inc.
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF MONTANA
`MISSOULA DIVISION
`
`
`ADELOS, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`HALLIBURTON COMPANY;
`HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES,
`INC.; OPTIPHASE, INC.;
`SENSORTRAN, INC.; and PINNACLE
`TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`Cause No. _________________
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT
`INFRINGEMENT AND
`CONVERSION
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`HALLIBURTON, Exh. 1012, p, 0001
`
`

`

`
`
`Plaintiff Adelos, Inc. (“Plaintiff” or “Adelos”), for its Complaint against
`
`Defendants Halliburton Company; Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.; Optiphase,
`
`Inc.; SensorTran, Inc.; and Pinnacle Technologies, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”
`
`or “Halliburton”), hereby demands a jury trial and alleges as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`Adelos brings this action as a result of Defendants’ unlawful scheme
`
`to obtain improper access to and misappropriate its proprietary technology
`
`developed out of its work with the United States Navy’s BLUE ROSE technology.
`
`Under the guise of developing a business relationship, Defendants obtained
`
`Adelos’ technical information, tried clandestinely to obtain a patent on it, and
`
`falsely claimed and marketed it as their own without any notice to Adelos or the
`
`United States Navy.
`
`2.
`
`Adelos’ technology turns ordinary fiber optic cable into a highly adept
`
`sensing device. The United States Navy developed the first generation of this
`
`technology for deployment in a highly classified and effective anti-submarine
`
`warfare program. The United States Navy ultimately saw the incredible
`
`commercial potential of this technology in such diverse industries as oil and gas
`
`exploration and homeland security and decided to declassify and patent it.
`
`3.
`
`Adelos was selected by the United States Navy to be its world-wide
`
`exclusive licensee to market and commercialize the BLUE ROSE technology. In
`
`- 2 -
`
`HALLIBURTON, Exh. 1012, p, 0002
`
`

`

`
`
`addition to the four United States Patents originally granted to the United States
`
`Navy,1 Adelos has spent considerable time, effort and resources in making
`
`significant advances to this technology. Many of these advances are contained
`
`within more than a dozen pending patent applications covering various aspects of
`
`this novel technology, providing for a fiber optic sensor array that can detect real-
`
`time, location-specific changes along an optical fiber, such as sound, pressure and
`
`temperature. The Navy Patents, the related pending patent applications, the
`
`technical information regarding the technology, and the advances made to this
`
`technology by Adelos are collectively referred to herein as “the Adelos Proprietary
`
`Technology.”
`
`4.
`
`The Adelos Proprietary Technology has been commercially
`
`successful, with Adelos securing significant contracts with the Department of
`
`Energy and the United States Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center, resulting in
`
`significant revenue for Adelos.
`
`5.
`
`In late 2011, Halliburton approached the United States Navy and
`
`expressed a strong desire in acquiring rights to the BLUE ROSE technology. The
`
`United States Navy referred Halliburton to Adelos. Halliburton then began
`
`
`1
`Adelos is the exclusive licensee of United States Patent No. 7,030,971 (the “’971 Patent”)
`(attached hereto as Exhibit A); United States Patent No. 7,268,863 (the “’863 Patent’”) (attached
`hereto as Exhibit B); United States Patent No. 7,271,884 (the “’884 Patent”) (attached hereto as
`Exhibit C); and United States Patent No. 7,274,441 (collectively, the “Navy Patents”). In this
`action, Adelos is asserting the ‘971 Patent, the ’863 Patent, and the ‘884 Patent (collectively, the
`“Asserted Patents”).
`
`- 3 -
`
`HALLIBURTON, Exh. 1012, p, 0003
`
`

`

`
`
`discussions with Adelos and represented that it was interested in acquiring rights to
`
`the Adelos Proprietary Technology.
`
`6.
`
`From early 2012 through late 2014, Halliburton proceeded to extract
`
`detailed information regarding the Adelos Proprietary Technology, which included
`
`convincing Adelos to perform testing for Defendants at Adelos’ headquarters in
`
`Montana so that they could observe the technology in action. Believing that
`
`Halliburton was acting in good faith in developing a business relationship with
`
`Adelos, Adelos provided a wealth of technical information to Halliburton.
`
`7.
`
`In August 2013, Halliburton secretly filed a foreign “PCT” application
`
`(PCT/US13/054588) (attached hereto as Exhibit D) that disclosed the very same
`
`technology that is the heart and soul of the Adelos Proprietary Technology.
`
`8.
`
`In this application, Halliburton purported to disclose, for the first time,
`
`the very same technology that Halliburton was simultaneously seeking information
`
`on from Adelos. The application falsely claimed that agents of Halliburton were
`
`the sole inventors of the disclosed technology. Halliburton never revealed to
`
`Adelos or the United States Navy that it had filed, or intended to file, this
`
`application and likewise failed to disclose the Navy Patents in this application.
`
`9.
`
`In January 2016, six months after it broke off discussions with
`
`Adelos, Halliburton again attempted to convert the Adelos Proprietary Technology
`
`by secretly filing a United States patent application (No. 14/903,503), again
`
`- 4 -
`
`HALLIBURTON, Exh. 1012, p, 0004
`
`

`

`
`
`claiming that agents of Halliburton were the sole inventors. Halliburton never
`
`disclosed to Adelos or the United States Navy that it had filed, or intended to file,
`
`this application.
`
`10.
`
`In addition to the filing of these patent applications that converted the
`
`Adelos Proprietary Technology, Halliburton also began to incorporate the
`
`technology disclosed in the Asserted Patents in its own products and services
`
`without the permission of Adelos or the United States Navy. These Halliburton
`
`products and services infringe the Asserted Patents.
`
`11. Under the guise of negotiating and establishing a business relationship
`
`with Adelos, Halliburton induced Adelos to divulge information related to the
`
`Adelos Proprietary Technology. Defendants then misappropriated that information
`
`and surreptitiously filed patent applications covering this technology, falsely
`
`claiming that agents of Halliburton had invented the technology, when they did
`
`not. In addition, Halliburton began to incorporate the technology disclosed in the
`
`Asserted Patents into its own products and services. At no time did Defendants
`
`disclose to Adelos or the United States Navy its efforts to convert the Adelos
`
`Proprietary Technology or its infringement of the Asserted Patents.
`
`12. As a result of Halliburton’s improper and illegal behavior, Adelos
`
`now brings this suit for conversion and patent infringement.
`
`- 5 -
`
`HALLIBURTON, Exh. 1012, p, 0005
`
`

`

`
`
`II. NATURE OF ACTION
`
`13. This is a civil action for Defendants’ conversion of the Adelos
`
`Proprietary Technology, as well as for Defendants’ infringement of the ’971
`
`Patent, the ’863 Patent, and the ’884 Patent, arising under Montana law and the
`
`patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1, et seq.
`
`14. Adelos is the exclusive licensee of the Navy Patents, and any patents
`
`issuing thereon, with all right, title and interest necessary to bring this action and
`
`recover all amounts due thereon. Adelos additionally has all rights, title, and
`
`interest in any reissue, divisional and continuation patent applications resulting
`
`from the Navy Patents.
`
`15. As set forth in detail herein, Defendants acquired under false
`
`pretenses access to the Adelos Proprietary Technology and secretly claimed it as
`
`their own in patent applications. Additionally, Defendants have made, used,
`
`imported, offered to sell or sold – and continue to make, use, import, offer to sell
`
`or sell – the technology claimed in the Asserted Patents. Defendants’ infringement
`
`of the Asserted Patents has been, and continues to be, willful.
`
`16. Adelos seeks damages, including punitive damages, for Defendants’
`
`conversion of the Adelos Proprietary Technology, as well as damages under 35
`
`U.S.C. §§ 284-285 for Defendants’ infringement of each of the Asserted Patents.
`
`Adelos additionally seeks a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-
`
`- 6 -
`
`HALLIBURTON, Exh. 1012, p, 0006
`
`

`

`
`
`2202 assigning to Adelos any Halliburton patent applications based on the Adelos
`
`Proprietary Technology and/or adding representatives of Adelos as the true
`
`inventors. Adelos also seeks a preliminary, and thereafter a permanent, injunction
`
`preventing Defendants from continuing to benefit from the Adelos Proprietary
`
`Technology.
`
`III. THE PARTIES
`
`17. Plaintiff Adelos, Inc. is a Nevada corporation with its principal place
`
`of business located at 145 Southlake Crest, Suite 2, Polson, Montana 59860.
`
`Adelos, Inc. is a subsidiary of S&K Technologies, Inc. S&K Technologies, Inc. is
`
`a federally-chartered corporation owned by the Confederated Salish and Kootenai
`
`Tribes.
`
`18. Adelos is an advanced fiber optic sensor development company that
`
`has specialized in marketing and commercializing its fiber optic sensor products
`
`for over a decade. Adelos and its predecessors have collaborated with specialized
`
`groups at the United States Navy, the Idaho National Laboratory, and the
`
`Department of Defense on projects related to this fiber optic sensing technology.
`
`19. Defendant Halliburton Company is a Delaware corporation with its
`
`principal place of business located at 3000 North Sam Houston Parkway East,
`
`Houston, Texas 77032. Halliburton Company is registered to do business in
`
`Montana and, on information and belief, regularly and systematically conducts
`
`- 7 -
`
`HALLIBURTON, Exh. 1012, p, 0007
`
`

`

`
`
`business throughout the United States, including Montana. Halliburton Company
`
`can be served with process through its registered agent, Capitol Corporate Services
`
`Inc., at 26 W. Sixth Ave., Helena, Montana 59601-0000.
`
`20.
`
`In 2007, at a time when the company was under investigation by the
`
`Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission, Defendant
`
`Halliburton Company opened a corporate headquarters in Dubai and relocated its
`
`chairman and chief executive officer there. The establishment of this new
`
`headquarters abroad allowed Halliburton Company to take advantage of Dubai’s
`
`particularly liberal tax, investment and residency laws.
`
`21. Defendant Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. is a Delaware
`
`corporation with its principal place of business located at 3000 North Sam Houston
`
`Parkway East, Houston, Texas 77032. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. is a
`
`wholly owned subsidiary of Halliburton Company. Defendant Halliburton Energy
`
`Services, Inc. is registered to do business in Montana and, on information and
`
`belief, regularly and systematically conducts business throughout the United
`
`States, including Montana. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. can be served with
`
`process through its registered agent, Capitol Corporate Services Inc., at 26 W.
`
`Sixth Ave., Helena, Montana 59601-0000.
`
`22. Defendant Optiphase, Inc. was a California business with its principal
`
`place of business located at 7652 Haskell Ave., Van Nuys, California 91406.
`
`- 8 -
`
`HALLIBURTON, Exh. 1012, p, 0008
`
`

`

`
`
`Optiphase, Inc. was acquired by Halliburton in 2013, and on information and belief
`
`is a wholly owned subsidiary of Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. Optiphase, Inc.,
`
`also referred to now as Optiphase – A Halliburton Service, can be served with
`
`process through the registered agent for Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., Capitol
`
`Corporate Services Inc., at 26 W. Sixth Ave., Helena, Montana 59601-0000.
`
`23. Defendant SensorTran, Inc. was a Delaware business with its
`
`principal place of business located at 4401 Freidrich Lane, Bldg. 307, Austin,
`
`Texas 78744. SensorTran was acquired by Halliburton in 2011, and on
`
`information and belief is a wholly owned subsidiary of Halliburton Energy
`
`Services, Inc. SensorTran, Inc. can be served with process through the registered
`
`agent for Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., Capitol Corporate Services Inc., at 26
`
`W. Sixth Ave., Helena, Montana 59601-0000.
`
`24.
`
` Defendant Pinnacle Technologies, Inc. was a Texas business with its
`
`principal place of business located at 9949 West Sam Houston Pkwy N, Houston,
`
`Texas 77064. Pinnacle Technologies, Inc. was acquired by Halliburton in 2008,
`
`and on information and belief is a wholly owned subsidiary of Halliburton Energy
`
`Services, Inc. Pinnacle Technologies, Inc., also referred to now as Pinnacle – A
`
`Halliburton Service, can be served with process through the registered agent for
`
`Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., Capitol Corporate Services Inc., at 26 W. Sixth
`
`Ave., Helena, Montana 59601-0000.
`
`- 9 -
`
`HALLIBURTON, Exh. 1012, p, 0009
`
`

`

`
`
`IV. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`25. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to
`
`28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a) because this action arises under the patent laws of
`
`the United States. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Adelos’ state law
`
`conversion claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 because this claim arises from the
`
`same case or controversy as Adelos’ patent claims.
`
`26. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants, significant
`
`providers of products and services to the energy industry around the world,
`
`including throughout the United States. Defendants market their products and
`
`services throughout the entire United States, including Montana.
`
`27. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants pursuant to the
`
`Montana Long-Arm Statute (Mont. R. Civ. P. § 4B(1)) because Defendants have
`
`transacted business within Montana and have purposefully directed, and continue
`
`to purposefully direct, infringing activities at the state of Montana. Defendants
`
`have also committed, and continue to commit, torts within Montana.
`
`28. Defendants are also subject to this Court’s personal jurisdiction
`
`because Defendants: (1) have committed, and continue to commit, acts of patent
`
`infringement and conversion in Montana; (2) have directed their acts of patent
`
`infringement and conversion at the state of Montana; (3) have regularly conducted,
`
`and continue to conduct, business in Montana; (4) have engaged in continuous and
`
`- 10 -
`
`HALLIBURTON, Exh. 1012, p, 0010
`
`

`

`
`
`systematic activities in Montana; (5) have solicited business within the state of
`
`Montana; and (6) have derived, and continue to derive, substantial revenue from
`
`goods and services provided to companies and individuals in Montana.
`
`29. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b), 1391(c)
`
`and 1400(b). Defendants Halliburton Company and Halliburton Energy Services,
`
`Inc. are registered to do business in this district and on information and belief,
`
`Defendants: (1) have transacted and continue to transact business in this district,
`
`(2) have committed and continue to commit acts of infringement of the Navy
`
`Patents and conversion of the Adelos Proprietary Technology in this district,
`
`and/or (3) a substantial part of the events giving rise to these claims occurred in
`
`this district. On information and belief, Defendants Optiphase, Inc., SensorTran,
`
`Inc., and Pinnacle Technologies, Inc. have no registered place of business separate
`
`and distinct from that of Halliburton Company and/or Halliburton Energy Services,
`
`Inc.
`
`V.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE TECHNOLOGY AT ISSUE
`
`30. The Adelos Proprietary Technology turns ordinary fiber optic cable
`
`into a highly adept sensing device. Dr. Robert Michael Payton invented the first
`
`generation of this technology for the United States Navy at the Naval Undersea
`
`Warfare Center, which in the 1990s had begun exploring the use of fiber optic
`
`sensors for submarine and surface ship towed “listening” arrays.
`
`- 11 -
`
`HALLIBURTON, Exh. 1012, p, 0011
`
`

`

`
`
`31. Originally conceived as a way to locate enemy submarines, Dr.
`
`Payton and the United States Navy spent years and millions of dollars developing
`
`their approach. This work matured into what would become known as the
`
`Battlescape Land Undersea Extensible Rayleigh Optical Sensor Electronics
`
`project, or BLUE ROSE, for short. For years, BLUE ROSE was deployed by the
`
`United States Navy in a highly classified and effective anti-submarine warfare
`
`program.
`
`32. The Adelos Proprietary Technology includes utilizing fiber optic
`
`cable laid out across long distances or placed in deep wellbores, such that the fiber
`
`optic cable itself becomes a sensing device for detecting phenomena (e.g., acoustic
`
`changes, temperature changes, or pressure changes) at virtually any point along the
`
`fiber optic cable. This is accomplished by sending optical signals down the fiber
`
`optic cable and then analyzing various optical signals reflected back (typically
`
`called back-scattering) from the fiber optic cable. By conditioning the initial
`
`optical signals with known patterns of code (typically called modulating), an
`
`analysis of the reflected optical signals results in greater accuracy and better signal
`
`resolution for detected phenomena. The patterns of code allow for the analysis to
`
`pinpoint locations of phenomena and to decipher specific characteristics, such as a
`
`precise acoustic change, a precise temperature change, or a precise pressure change
`
`at the pinpointed location.
`
`- 12 -
`
`HALLIBURTON, Exh. 1012, p, 0012
`
`

`

`
`
`33. While this fiber optic sensing technology was initially developed by
`
`the United States Navy for submarine sensing applications, as the United States
`
`Navy continued to make improvements on the technology over time, it saw the
`
`incredible commercial potential of additional applications of the BLUE ROSE
`
`technology. This included applications in such diverse industries as oil and gas
`
`exploration and homeland security, and as a result, the United States Navy decided
`
`to declassify the BLUE ROSE technology in an effort to pursue patent protections
`
`for these novel applications. In fact, the current market for distributed fiber optic
`
`sensing technology is estimated at $586 million annually, and that market is
`
`expected to double over the next three years.
`
`34. Now protected by four United States Patents (the Navy Patents), as
`
`well as more than a dozen pending patent applications, this novel technology
`
`provides for a fiber optic sensor array that can detect real-time, location-specific
`
`changes along an optical fiber, such as sound, pressure and temperature. These
`
`four United States Patents were issued to inventor Robert Michael Payton and
`
`assigned to The United States of America represented by the Secretary of the
`
`Navy.
`
`35.
`
`In an effort to market and commercialize the technology disclosed in
`
`the Navy Patents more effectively and to enforce its rights under the Navy Patents,
`
`- 13 -
`
`HALLIBURTON, Exh. 1012, p, 0013
`
`

`

`
`
`the United States Navy selected Adelos to be their partner and exclusive licensee to
`
`the Navy Patents.
`
`VI. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`A. The Adelos Proprietary Technology Has Achieved Commercial Success
`
`36. Adelos develops fiber optic sensor systems for use by the Department
`
`of Defense and Department of Energy, as well as in the oil and gas, perimeter
`
`security, and environmental monitoring industries, among others. The Adelos
`
`Proprietary Technology is able to detect and identify more quickly and accurately
`
`conditions of interest, track objects across space in real-time, and identify naturally
`
`occurring “false positive” events.
`
`37. Adelos has been successful in further developing the United States
`
`Navy’s technology. For example, Adelos has created systems directed toward
`
`perimeter and homeland security applications, where the sensitive detector can
`
`“hear” intruder or troop movements along vast borders. Adelos has also developed
`
`the capability of the system to “listen” to geological features and movements,
`
`opening the capability to “hear” down oil well bores and extract valuable data
`
`about underground gas and petroleum conditions.
`
`38. This technical superiority has resulted in commercial success for
`
`Adelos, as it has received multiple contracts for the use of its fiber optic sensing
`
`technology. By way of example, the Department of Energy Idaho National
`
`- 14 -
`
`HALLIBURTON, Exh. 1012, p, 0014
`
`

`

`
`
`Laboratory – National Security Test Range partnered with Adelos to be its primary
`
`advanced testing center. The United States Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center
`
`also chose Adelos’ systems for its critical defense systems to help guard the
`
`Nation’s nuclear-tipped inter-continental ballistic missiles.
`
`B. Defendants’ Attempts to Acquire the Adelos Proprietary Technology
`
`39.
`
`In late 2011, Halliburton contacted the United States Navy and
`
`expressed an interest in acquiring rights to its BLUE ROSE fiber optic sensing
`
`technology. The United States Navy directed Halliburton to contact Adelos, the
`
`exclusive licensee of the Navy Patents, about their interest in acquiring rights to
`
`this technology.
`
`40. Shortly thereafter, Halliburton and Adelos began discussions
`
`regarding Halliburton’s interest in the Adelos Proprietary Technology. Halliburton
`
`expressed its disappointment with its current fiber optic sensing system and
`
`represented that it was interested in establishing a business relationship with
`
`Adelos.
`
`41. During the next couple of years, from early 2012 through late 2014,
`
`Halliburton proceeded to extract detailed technical information about the Adelos
`
`Proprietary Technology. Believing that Halliburton was acting in good faith and
`
`intending to enter into a business relationship with Adelos, Adelos provided details
`
`- 15 -
`
`HALLIBURTON, Exh. 1012, p, 0015
`
`

`

`
`
`related to the Adelos Proprietary Technology to Halliburton in an effort to
`
`facilitate this potential business relationship.
`
`42.
`
`In addition to its numerous requests to Adelos for technical
`
`information, Halliburton also demanded that it be allowed to observe multiple tests
`
`of Adelos’ fiber optic sensing systems. In May 2012, Christopher Stokely and
`
`David Barfoot, agents of Halliburton, visited the headquarters of Adelos near
`
`Polson, Montana for two days of intense, detailed technical discussion regarding
`
`the Adelos Proprietary Technology, to observe the technology in action, as well as
`
`to extract more technical data from Adelos.
`
`43. During discussions with Adelos, Halliburton expressed its
`
`disappointment with its current fiber optic sensing system, and after witnessing the
`
`superior functionality and performance of the Adelos Proprietary Technology,
`
`Halliburton agent Christopher Stokely referred to the Adelos system as “a unique
`
`type of distributed acoustic sensor” and expressed interest in performing additional
`
`field tests.
`
`44. As Halliburton continued to induce Adelos to disclose information,
`
`Adelos continued to attempt to engage in negotiations with Halliburton regarding
`
`the Adelos Proprietary Technology as well as entering into a potential business
`
`relationship. Halliburton encouraged these negotiations as a means of justifying its
`
`demands for more and more detailed technical information.
`
`- 16 -
`
`HALLIBURTON, Exh. 1012, p, 0016
`
`

`

`
`
`45.
`
`In September 2012, after having provided Halliburton with the
`
`technical information it requested, the testing that it had requested, and
`
`demonstrating the technology to Halliburton’s agents in person, Halliburton
`
`informed Adelos that due to budget concerns it would have to postpone any further
`
`discussions until the beginning of 2013.
`
`46.
`
`In early 2013, rather than approaching Adelos, Halliburton instead
`
`approached the United States Navy concerning a potential business relationship
`
`involving the Adelos Proprietary Technology. Once again, the United States Navy
`
`directed Halliburton to speak with Adelos.
`
`47. Shortly thereafter, Adelos and Halliburton restarted discussions.
`
`Halliburton agent Christopher Stokely again requested additional field testing of
`
`this technology. Following these requests for additional testing, and despite
`
`numerous attempts over the next few months, Adelos was unable to get in touch
`
`with Mr. Stokely, or any other agent of Halliburton, for further discussions.
`
`48. On August 12, 2013, Halliburton surreptitiously filed an international
`
`patent application (PCT/US13/054588) (attached hereto as Exhibit D) entitled
`
`“Systems and Methods for Spread Spectrum Distributed Acoustic Sensor
`
`Monitoring.” This patent application disclosed the technology that is the heart and
`
`soul of Adelos’ fiber optic sensing technology.
`
`- 17 -
`
`HALLIBURTON, Exh. 1012, p, 0017
`
`

`

`
`
`49. The technology in this Halliburton patent application disclosed some
`
`of the very same technology Halliburton had requested information about from
`
`Adelos and about which Halliburton had represented that it was negotiating a
`
`business relationship in good faith.
`
`50. Halliburton falsely claimed in this application that its agents,
`
`including Christopher Stokely, were the sole inventors of the technology.
`
`51. Halliburton also did not disclose in this application any of the Navy
`
`Patents, the same patents that had been at the center of the potential business
`
`relationship and discussions between Halliburton and Adelos for over a year.
`
`52. Halliburton likewise never advised Adelos or the United States Navy
`
`that it had filed, or intended to file, this international patent application.
`
`53. On May 19, 2014, in the issued Written Opinion of the International
`
`Searching Authority (attached hereto as Exhibit E), all claims (Claims 1-24) of
`
`Halliburton’s pending international patent application (PCT/US13/054588) were
`
`effectively deemed to be no different than the technology invented by the United
`
`States Navy and disclosed in at least one of the Navy Patents (the ‘971 Patent).
`
`54. The opinion stated that the claims did not disclose any patentable
`
`technology separate and distinct from what was disclosed in the ‘971 Patent, and
`
`that any minor differences were obvious in light of the disclosures in the ‘971
`
`- 18 -
`
`HALLIBURTON, Exh. 1012, p, 0018
`
`

`

`
`
`Patent. Thus, the International Searching Authority confirmed that Halliburton
`
`was merely attempting to patent the Adelos Proprietary Technology.
`
`55. After its attempts to convert the Adelos Proprietary Technology by
`
`filing an international patent application were rejected, Halliburton and Adelos
`
`briefly reopened negotiations for the Adelos Proprietary Technology in early 2015.
`
`56. Not long after reopening discussions, Halliburton and Adelos
`
`executed a Non-Disclosure Agreement so that the parties could continue their
`
`discussions. This agreement applied only to confidential materials disclosed after
`
`the March 24, 2015 effective date. After dragging their feet for months,
`
`Halliburton executed the Non-Disclosure Agreement in April 2015.
`
`57. Almost immediately after executing the Non-Disclosure Agreement,
`
`all discussions with Halliburton stopped. Halliburton formally broke off
`
`“negotiations” with Adelos several weeks later, stating, “[T]he ROI is just not
`
`there.” There was ultimately no performance pursuant to this agreement as no
`
`technical information was shared and no documents were marked confidential
`
`pursuant to it.
`
`58.
`
`In January 2016, six months after it broke off discussions with
`
`Adelos, Halliburton once again took the Adelos Proprietary Technology and
`
`attempted to claim it as their own in a United States patent application (No.
`
`- 19 -
`
`HALLIBURTON, Exh. 1012, p, 0019
`
`

`

`
`
`14/903,503) entitled “Systems and Methods for Spread Spectrum Distributed
`
`Acoustic Sensor Monitoring” (attached hereto as Exhibit F).
`
`59. This application was published on May 26, 2016 and disclosed
`
`technology that is the heart and soul of Adelos’ fiber optic sensing technology.
`
`60. Unlike Halliburton’s PCT application, this United States patent
`
`application disclosed the ‘971 Patent as containing similar subject matter. The
`
`‘971 Patent is the same Navy Patent referenced in the International Searching
`
`Authority’s Written Opinion, which stated that Halliburton’s international patent
`
`application did not disclose an invention separate and distinct from what was
`
`already invented and disclosed in the ‘971 Patent.
`
`61. This United States application likewise falsely claims that Halliburton
`
`agents, including Christopher Stokely, were the sole inventors of the technology it
`
`disclosed. Halliburton again failed to disclose to either Adelos or the United States
`
`Navy that it had filed, or intended to file, this United States patent application.
`
`C. Defendants’ Infringement of the Navy Patents
`
`62. During its discussions with Adelos, Halliburton expressed its
`
`displeasure with the performance of its own distributed sensing system. After
`
`witnessing the superior functionality of Adelos’ own distributed sensing systems,
`
`Halliburton defrauded Adelos under the guise of entering into a business
`
`relationship. Without notice, and without the permission of Adelos, Halliburton
`
`- 20 -
`
`HALLIBURTON, Exh. 1012, p, 0020
`
`

`

`
`
`began to incorporate the technology disclosed in the Asserted Patents into its own
`
`products and services.
`
`63. Defendants have been infringing, and continue to infringe, the
`
`technology disclosed in the Asserted Patents through its distributed sensing
`
`products and services marketed under various trade names, including but not
`
`limited to Pinnacle, Optiphase, and SensorTran. These infringing products include
`
`Defendants’ DAS and DTS products, which include but are not limited to the:
`
`Halliburton DAS and DTS Interrogator systems, Pinnacle DAS and DTS
`
`Interrogator systems, Optiphase DAS Interrogator systems, SensorTran DTS
`
`Interrogator systems, and FiberWatch systems. Defendants’ infringing services
`
`include those services that incorporate any of Defendants’ infringing products, and
`
`include but are not limited to: Defendants’ FiberWatch, StimWatch, FlowWatch,
`
`FiberCoil, FiberView, and FiberLog services. Collectively, these infringing
`
`products and services are herein referred to as the “Accused Distributed Sensing
`
`Products and Services.”
`
`64. As a result of Defendants’ infringement, Adelos has suffered
`
`irreparable harm due to the loss of potential customers and contracts, the loss of
`
`market share, and the deterioration of its goodwill, and will continue to suffer such
`
`harm until and unless such infringement by Defendants is enjoined. Moreover,
`
`there is no other adequate remedy at law other than an injunction.
`
`- 21 -
`
`HALLIBURTON, Exh. 1012, p, 0021
`
`

`

`
`
`65. Additionally, as a result of Defendants’ infringement, Adelos has
`
`suffered significant monetary damages.
`
`VII. CAUSES OF ACTION
`
`COUNT I
`
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,030,971
`
`66. Adelos re-alleges and incorporates the allegations in Paragraphs 1
`
`through 65 of this Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.
`
`67. Defendants have infringed, and continue to infringe, one or more of
`
`the claims of the ‘971 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), literally and/or
`
`under the doctrine of equivalents, by making, using, selling and/or offering for sale
`
`within the United States, and/or importing into the United States, the Accused
`
`Distributed Sensing Products and Services.
`
`68. By way of example, Defendants’ infringement of claim 22 of the ‘971
`
`Patent is illustrated in the preliminary infringement claim chart attached hereto as
`
`Exhibit G.
`
`69. On information and belief, Defendants’ infringement of the ‘971
`
`Patent is willful and 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