M-I Drilling Fluids UK v. Dynamic Air Et. Al.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
M-I DRILLING FLUIDS UK LTD.

Plaintiff,
l3-cvV.
,lgs,
ilDa|s"tL)
COMPLAINT
DYNAMIC AIR fNC., AND DYNAMIC AIR LTDA.
Defendants.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Plaintiff M-I Drilling Fluids UK Ltd. for its Complaint, alleges
as
follows:
INTRODUCTION
l.
This is an action brought by M-I Drilling Fluids UK Ltd. ("MIDF UK" or
"Plaintiff') against Dynamic Air Inc. and Dynamic Air Ltda. (collectively, "Defendants")
for Defendants' infringement of patents owned by MIDF
UK. In particular,
Defendants
have infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 6,702,539 (the "539 Patent"), 6,709,217 (the "2I7 Patent"),7,033,I24 (the"I24 Patent"),7,186,062 (the "062 Patent"), and7,544,018 (the "018 Patent") (collectively, the "Asserted Patents"). This action arises under the patent
laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. $ 100, et seq.
A
SEP
U.S
-I
201
DISTRTCT
PARTIES
2.
MIDF UK is a foreign private limited company existing under the laws of
the United Kingdom, with its principal place of business at Porca Quay, Aberdeen,
Aberdeenshire,
ABl l 5DQ, United Kingdom.
3.
Defendant Dynamic
Air Inc. ("Dynamic Air") is a corporation
existing
under the laws of the State of Minnesota, with its principal place of business at 1125
Willow Lake Blvd, Saint Paul, MN 55110.
4.
Defendant Dynamic
Air Ltda. is a foreign corporation existing under the
laws of Brazil, with its principal place of business at Av. Mathias Lopes 5.821, 12960000 Nazare Paulista 12960-000 Sp,
T.tda. is a subsidiary of Dynamic
Brazil. Upon information and belief, Dynamic Air
Air.
JURISDICTION ANP VENUE
5.
and 1338(a).
This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. $$
1331
6.
This Court has personal jurisdiction over Dynamic Air because Dynamic
maintains its principal place of business within the
Air is incorporated in Minnesota,

State
of Minnesota, ffid Dynamic Air regularly conducts business within the State of
Miruresota
7.
Dynamic
This Court has personal jurisdiction over Dynamic Air Ltda.
because
Air Ltda., upon information and belief, conducts regular and systematic
business with at least its corporate parent, Dynamic Air, within the State of Minnesota.
-2-
8.
This Court also has personal jurisdiction over Dynamic Air Ltda. because
Dynamic Air Ltda., upon information and belief, operates as an instrumentality or alter-
ego of Dynamic
Air
such.that Dynamic
Air Ltda. is vicariously
subject to personal
jurisdiction in this Court based on Dynamic Air's contacts and operations in Minnesota.
For example, upon information and belief, Dynamic Air holds out Dynamic Air Ltda.
an international location and sales office for Dynamic common website with Dynamic
as
Air.
Dynamic Air Ltda. shares a
Air
and uses substantially similar promotional materials
and advertisements. Upon information and belief; Dynamic
Air
and Dynamic
Air Ltda.
offer the same products and services, all marketed and sold under the common Dynamic
Air@ brand.
9.
In the event that this Court does not have personal jurisdiction by virtue of
the above, this Court nonetheless has personal jurisdiction over Dynamic Air Ltda.
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2) because this case arises under federal
law, Dynamic Air Ltda. is not subject to jurisdiction in any state's courts of general jurisdiction, and Dynamic Air Ltda. has regularly engaged in business in the United
States and purposefully availed itself
of the privilege of conducting
business
in
the
United States by installing and operating conveying systems for drill cuttings currently
installed on the ships HOS Resolution and HOS Pinnacle, U.S.-flagged ships, which are
part of U.S. territory. These activities infringe the Asserted Patents.
10.
District.
Venue is proper in this District for Dynamic
Air Inc.
under 35 U.S.C.
1391(c)(2) and 35 U.S.C.
1400(b) because Dynamic
Air Inc.
resides within this
-3-
11.
Venue is proper in this District for Dynamic
Air Ltda. under 35 U.S.C.
1391(c)(2) and (3) and 35 U.S.C. $ 1400(b) because Dynamic Air Ltda. is subject to this
Qourt's personal jurisdiction and because Dynamic Air Ltda. is not resident in the United
States.
BACKgROUNp MIDF UK, CLEANCUT@ TECHNOLOGY, AND THE ASSERTED

PATENTS
12.
MIDF UK is a leading supplier of drilling fluid systems and equipment
engineered to improve drilling performance by anticipating fluids-related problems, fluid
systems and specialty tools designed
to
optimize wellbore productivity, production
technology solutions to maximize production rates, and environmental solutions that

safely manage waste volumes generated in both drilling and production operations.
13.
When oil wells are drilled, the subterranean formation cuttings from the
a
drilling operation are brought to the.drilling rig on the surface. An example of such
drilling rig is an offshore drilling platform. When brought to the surface, drill cuttings
are in slurry with drilling fluid, and after some degree of separation from the drilling
fluid, form a very thick heavy paste. Drill cuttings must be disposed of in
environmentally-safe way and are typically transported
an
off of the rig for
processing
elsewhere. Often times, ships will receive drill cuttings from the oil rig and transport
them to shore for processing.
14.
One of the products and services that MIDF
IIK
offers its customers in the
United States is the CLEANCUT@ pneumatic drill cuttings collections and containment
-4-
system, which is the most widely-used technology for safely handling drilling waste
offshore. CLEANCUT@ has been used to effectively complete hundreds of well sections with nearly 2 million barrels of cuttings safely collected and transported.
15.
The Asserted Patents are directed to methods, systems and apparatuses used
as
for collecting, conveying, transporting, and/or storing non-free flowing pastes, such
drill cuttings, in an environmentally-safe way. The Asserted Patents provide
a novel way
to pneumatically convey non-free flowing pastes, such as drill cuttings, using compressed
gas and one or more vessels or containers.
16. 17.
MIDF
t1the owner by assignment of all of the Asserted Patents.
The 539 Patent, entitled Pneumatic Conveying, was duly and lawfully 9,2004. MIDF UK is the current owner of all rights, title, and interest
issued on March
in the 539 Patent. A true and correct copy of the 539 Patent is affached hereto as Exhibit A.
18.
The 217 Patent, entitled Method of Pneumatically Conveying Non-Free
Flowing Paste, was duly and lawfully issued on March 23,2004,. MIDF UK is the
current owner of all rights, title, and interest in the 2I7 Patent A true and'correct copy
of
the2l7 Patent is attached hereto
as
Exhibit B.
19.
The I24 Patent, entitled Method and Apparatus for Pneumatic Conveying
of Drilt Cuttings, was duly and lawfully issued on April 25, 2006. MIDF UK is the
current owner of all rights, title, and interest in the 124 Patent A true and correct copy the 124 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
of
-5-
20.
The 062 Patent, entitled Method and Apparatus
for Pneumatic Conveying
of Drill Cuttings, was duly and lawfully issued on March 6, 2007. MIDF UK is the
current owner of all rights, title, and interest in the 062 Patent. A trup and correct copy the 062 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit D.
of
21.
The 018 Patent, entitled Apparatus for Pneumatic Conveying of Drill
Cuttings, was duly and lawfully issued on June 9,2009. MIDF UK is the current owner
of all rights, title, and interest in the 018 Patent. A true and correct copy of the 018
Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit E.
II.
DYNAMIC AIR AND ITS INF'RINGING CONVEYING SYSTEM

Defendants specialize in pneumatic conveying
22. 23.
of dry bulk solids for
the
processing industries.
Upon information and belief, Defendants design, sell and
operate
pneumatic conveyance methods, systems and apparatuses that use pneumatic means to
transfer drill cuttings off an offshore oil rig for storage and disposal.
24.
Sometime between October 2011 and January 2012, Dynamic
Air
Ltda.
submitted a bid in response to a Request for Proposal ("RFP"; from Petr6leo Brasileiro S.A. ("Petrobras") for a pneumatic conveyance system that could be used to remove drill
cuttings from an oil
rig. MIDF UK's
sister company and customel, M-I Swaco do Brasil
- Comercio, Servicos E Mineracao Ltda. C'M-I Brazil"),submitted a bid in response to

the RFP as well. Dynamic Air Ltda. submitted its bid soon after as many as eight
employees
of M-I Brazil who worked on similar technolory left M-I Brazil to join
Dynamic Air Ltda. On information and beliel neither Dynamic Air nor Dynamic Air
-6-
Ltda. had ever designed a pneumatic conveyance system for the transfer of drill cuttings
prior to this. Dynamic Air Ltda. was the winner of the bidding process, and, upon
information and belief, thereafter along with Dynamic Air designed, sold and operated
such a system on the HOS Resolution, a U.S.-flagged ship, that pneumatically conveys
drill cuttings from off-shore oil rig P-59, located off the coast of Vitoria, Brazil, in a
manner that infringes the Asserted Patents. The Defendants then transport and convey the drill cuttings for disposal and/or further processing.
25.
On or around February 2013, Dynamic Air Ltda. employees used such a
system to pneumatically convey
drill cuttings onto and off of the HOS Resolution
and
have continued this infringing activity since that time.
26. On or around August 2013, Dynamic Air Ltda. installed a similar

pneumatic conveyance system aboard the HOS Pinnacle, a U.S.-flagged ship, which pneumatically conveys
drill cuttings from offshore rig P-I[, located off the coast of
Vitoria, Brazil, in a manner that infringes the Asserted Patents. The Defendants then
transport and convey the
drill cuttings for disposal and/or further processing. Upon
information and belief, Dynamic
Air Ltda. has also installed and operates a similar

P-I[ rig itself.
pneumatic conveyance system aboard the
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
27. 28.
MIDF IIK owns by assignment the entire right, title, and interest in and to
the Asserted Patents.
Defendants have infringed and continue to infringe each of the Asserted
Patents by engaging in acts constituting infringement under 35 U.S.C. S 271, including
-7
but not necessarily limited to one or more of making, using, selling and offering to sell in
the United States, and importing intb the United States, certain material conveying
systems, including, but not limited
to conveying
systems
for drill cuttings currently
installed on the U.S.-flagged ships HOS Resolution and HOS Pinnacle, which are part of
the United States.
29.
Defendants have also contributed
to and are contributing to the
infringement of each of the Asserted Patents by making, using, selling and offering to sell
in the United States, and importing into the United States, certain material conveying
systems that have
no substantial non-infringing uses, including, but not limited to
conveying systems for drill cuttings currently installed on the U.S.-flagged ships HOS
Resolution and HOS Pinnacle. As described infra, Defendants have done so with
knowledge of the Asserted Patents.
30.
Upon information and belief, Defendants have also induced, and continue
to induce, the infringement of each of the Asserted Patents by instructing others to utilize pneumatic conveyance systems, such as the ones aboard the HOS Resolution and HOS Pinnacle,
in an infringing way. As
described infra, Defendants have done so with
knowledge of the Asserted Patents and with the specific intent that the end users operate
the systems in an infringing manner.
COUNT
TNFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,702,539
31.
Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs
1-
30 as though fully set forth herein.
-8-
32.
Defendants have directly infringed and are infringing the 539 Patent in this
District and elsewhere in the United States by making, using, offering for sale, selling,
and importing, without authority, products and services including pneumatic conveyance systems, such as the pneumatic conveyance systems aboard the HOS Resolution and HOS Pinnacle.
33.
Defendants have also contributed and are contributing to the infringement
of the 539 Patent by others in this District and elsewhere in the United States. The direct
infringement occurs by the activities of any end users of the pneumatic conveyance
systems, including individual Defendants and third parties. Upon information and belief,
Defendants have performed the acts that constitute contributory infringement with
knowledge of the 539 Patent and knolvledge that the pneumatic conveyance systems were especially made or especially adapted for infringing use of the 539 Patent, and were not staple articles or commodities
of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing
use.
That is, Defendants' pneumatic conveyance systems are specifically designed to convey,
store, and/or transport drill cuttings in an infringing way.
34.
Specifically, Defendants have been aware of the 539 patent through many
channels including their general knowledge of the industry and of Plaintiff s operations. Defendants and MIDF UK's customer,
M-I Brazil, are close competitors in the oil field
industry and specifically competed against each other
in bidding for a pneumatic
conveyance system requested by Petrobras. Further, several ex-M-I Brazil employees
with intimate knowledge of Plaintiffs CLEANCUT@ system and the patents in suit
are
-9
now employed by Dynamic Air Ltda. and took this knowledge with them to Dynamic Air Ltda. and its parent Dynamic Air Inc.
35.
Defendants have also had knowledge of the 539 patent.as of the August 29,
2013 notice letter sent
to
Defendants indicating that Defendants contribute
to
the
infringement of the claims of the 539 patent.
3.6.
Patent
Defendants have also induced and are inducing the infringement of the 539
by others in this District and

\
elsewhere
in the United States. The direct
infringement occurs by the activities of end users, including individual Defendants and
tfriid parties, of Defendants' pneumatic conveyance systems. Upon information
and
belief Defendants performed the acts that constitute the induced infringement with
knowledge of the 539 Patent and with the knowledge or willful blindness that the induced
acts would constitute infringement.
37. 38.
As shown above in paragraphs 34 and 35, Defendants have had knowledge
of the 539 patent at least as of Augu st29,2013i,. Despite this knowledge, Defendants have, upon information and belief,
specifically instructed end users to operate Defendants' pneumatic conveyance systems to

convey, store, and/or transport drill cuttings in an infringing way. Upon information and
belief, Defendants design and set up the pneumatic conveyance systems on ships such
as
the HOS Resolution and HOS Pinnacle and provide end users specific instructions on
how to operate the pneumatic conveyance systems in an infringing way.
39.
Defendants' infringement of the 539 Patent has caused and continues to
cause damage
to Plaintiff in an amount to be determined at trial. Defendants have

10 -
continued to infringe the 539 patent even after Defendants had knowledge of the patent
and so such infringement is
willful
and
Plaintiff is entitled to enhanced damages.
40.
continue
Defendants' acts have caused, and unless restrained and enjoined, will
cause, irreparable injury and damage
to
to Plaintiff for which there is
no
adequate remedy at
law.
Unless enjoined by this Court, Defendants
will
continue to
infringe the 539 Patent.
41.
285.
Defendants' infringement
of the 539 Patent is
exceptional and entitles

$
Plaintiff to attorneys' fees and costs incurred in prosecuting this action under 35 U.S.C.
, 42. 43.
COUNT
II
TNFRTNGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,709,217
1-
41 as though fully set forth herein. Defendants have directly infringed and are infringing the 217 Patent in this
44.
to and are contributing to
the
infringement of the 217 Patent by others in this District and elsewhere in the United
States. The direct infringement occurs
by the activities of any end users, including
individual Defendants and third parties, of the pneumatic conveyance systems. Upon - 1l -
information and belief, Defendants have performed the acts that constitute contributory infringement with knowledge
of the 217
Patent and knowledge that the pneumatic
conveyance systems were especially made or especially adapted for infringing use of the
217 Patent, and were not staple articles or commodities
of
commerce suitable for
substantial non-infringing use. That is, Defendants' pneumatic conveyance systems were
specifically designed to convey, store, and/or transport drill cuttings in an inflinging way.
45.
charurels including their general knowledge of the industry and of Plaintiff s operations.
Defendants and MIDF UK's customer,
with intimate knowledge of Plaintiff s CLEANCUT@ system and the patents in suit
are
46.,
Defendants have also had knowledge of the 217 patent as of the August 29,
to
to
the

47
Defendants have also induced and are inducing the infringement of the 2I7
Patent
elsewhere
third parties, of Defendants' pneumatic conveyance systems. Upon information and

belief, Defendants performed the acts that constitute the induced infringement with
-12-
knowledge of the 217 Patent and with the knowledge or willful blindness that the induced
acts would constitute infringement.
48. 49.
of the 217 patent at least as of August29,20l3.
Despite this knowledge, Defendants .have, upon information and belief,
specifically instructed end users, including individual Defendants and third parties, to
operate Defendants' pneumatic conveyance systems
to convey, store, and/or transport
drill cuttings in an infringing way. Upon information and belief, Defendants design and
set up the pneumatic conveyance systems on ships such as the HOS Resolution and HOS
Pinnacle and provide end users
with specific instructions on how to
operate the
pneumatic conveyance systems in an infringing way.
50.
of the 217 Patent has caused and continues to
cause damage
willful and Plaintiff is entitled to enhanced
damages.
51.
continue
to
no
adequate remedy at
law.
will
continue to
52.
285.
of
the 217 Patent is exceptional and entitles
Plaintiff to attorneys' fees and costs incurred in prosecuting this action under 35 U.S.C. S
-13-
COUNT
III
l-
INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7'033'124
53.
54.
52 as though fully set forth herein.
Defendants have directly infringed and are infringing the l}4Patent in this
and importing, without authority, products and services including pneumatic conveyance
systems, such as the pneumatic conveyance systems aboard the HOS Resolution and HOS Piruracle.
55.
the
individual Defendants and third parties, of the pneumatic conveyance systems. Upon information and belief, Defendants have performed the acts that constitute contributory infringement with knowledge of the
!24
124 Patent,
ffid were not
staple articles
or commodities of
specifically designed to convey, store, and/or transport drill cuttings in an infringing way.
56.
channels including their general knowledge of the industry and of Plaintiffls operations. Defendants and MIDF UK's customer, M-I Brazil, are close competitors in the oil field
-14-
now employed by Dynamic Air Ltda. and took this knowledge with them to Dynamic Ltda. and its parent Dynamic Air Inc.
are
Air
57.
2013 notice letter sent to Defendants indicating that Defendants contribute

infringement of the claims of the I24 patent
to
the
58.
Patent
elsewhere
third parties, of the accused products. Upon information and belief

performed the acts that constitute the induced infringement with knowledge
Defendants
of the 124
Patent and with the knowledge or willful blindness that the induced acts would constitute infringement.
59. 60.
of the 124 patentat least as of August29,20l3. Despite this knowledge, Defendantl have, upon information and belief,
specifically instructed end users to operate Defendants' pneumatic conveyance systems to 'convey, store, and/or transport drill cuttings in an infringing way. Upon information and belief, Defendants design and set up the pneumatic conveyance systems on ships such
as
-15-
the HOS Resolution and HOS Pinnacle and provide end users with specific instructions
on how to operate the systems in an infringing way.
61.
of
the
124 Patent has caused and continues to
cause damage
damages.
62.
continue to cause, ineparable injury and damage to Plaintiff for which there is no
adequate remedy at
law.
Unless enjoined by this.Court, Defendants
will
continue to
infringe the
124 Patent.
63.
of the 124 Patent is exceptional
and entitles
$
Plaintiff to attorneys' fees and costs incurred in prosecuting this action under 35 U.S.C
285.
COUNT IV TNFRTNGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,186,062
64. ' 65.
l-
-16-
66.
infringement
the
of the A62 Patent by others in this Districi and elsewhere in the United
States. The direct inftingement occurs
individual Defendants and third parties, of the pneumatic conveyance systems. Upon information and belief, Defendants have performed the acts that constitute contributory infringement with knowledge
of the 062
062 Patent, ffid were not staple articles. or commodities
of
67.
MJ Brazil,
are close competitors in the oil field
with intimate knowledge of Plaintifls CLEANCUT@ system and the patents in suit
now employed by Dynamic Air Ltda. and took this knowledge with them to Dynamic Ltda. and its parent Dynamic Air Inc.
are
Air
68.
to
to
the
t7-
69.
Patent
elsewhere
third parties, of the accused products. Upon information and belief,
Defendants
performed the acts that constitute the induced infringement with knowledge of the 062
Patent and with the knowledse or
willful blindness that the induced acts would constitute
infringement.
70. 71.
of the 062 patent at least as of August29,2013.
Despite this knowledge, Defendants have, upon information and belief
specifically instructed end users, including individual Defendants and third parties, to
operate the
pneurnatic conveyance systems in an infringing way.
72.
Defendanti' infringement of the 062 Patent has caused and continues to
cause damage
continued to infringe the 062patent even after Defendants had knowledge of the patent
damages.
73.
continue to cause, irreparable injury and damage to Plaintiff for which there is no
-18-
adequate remedy at
law.
will
continue to
infringe the 062Patent.
74.
285.
of the 062 Patent is
exceptional and entitles

$
COUNT V
INFRTNGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,544,018
75. 76.
l-
77.
to
and are contributing
to
the
individual Defendants and third parties, of the pneumatic conveyance systems. Upon information and belief, Defendants have performed the acts that constitute contributory infringement with knowledge
of the 018 Patent and knowledge that the
pneumatic
018 Patent,
ffid were not staple articles or
commodities
of
-t9-
78.
are
79.
to
to
the
infringement of the claims of the 018 patent
80..
Patent
elsewhere
third parties, of the accused products. Upon information and belief, Defendants
performed the acts that constitute the induced infringement with knowledge of the 018
Patent and with the knowledge or
willful blindness that the induced acts would constitute
infringement.
81.
As shown above in paragraphs 78 and79, Defendants have had knowledge
of the 018 patent at least as of August29,2013.
-20 -
82.
Despite this knowledge, Defendants have, upon information and belief
specifically instructed end users, inc.ludirig individual Defendants and third parties, to
operate the
pneumatic systems in an infringing way.
83.
Defendants' infringement of the 018 Patent has caused and continues io
cause damage
to Plaintiff in an amount to be determined at trial. Defendants
have
willful
and
Plaintiff is entitled to enhanced damages.
84.
continue
to
no
adequate remedy at
law.
will
continue to
85.
of the 018 Patent is exceptional and entitles

$
285.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
86.
Pursuant to Rule 3S(b) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff
demands atrialby jury of all issues so triable.
-21
PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment and seeks relief against Defendants follows:
as
(a)
willtul;
That the Asserted Patents have been and continue to be directly and/or
indirectly infringed by each of the Defendants, and that such infringement has been
(b) (c)
That the Asserted Patents are not invalid and are not unenforceable;
For all damages sustained as a result of each Defendant's infringement of
the Asserted Patents as herein alleged, including an award of enhanced damages pursuant
to 35 U.S.C. $ 284;
(d) (e)
For pre-judgment interest and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate
allowed by law;
For a permanent injunction enjoining each Defendant, its officers, agents,
seryants, employees and all other persons acting in concert or participation with
it from
further infringement, contributory infringement, and inducement of infringement of the

Asserted Patents;
(f) (g) (h) Dated:
For an award of attorneys' fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. $ 2S5 or as otherwise
permitted by law;
For all costs of suit; and For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. August
30,2013
By:
-22 -
s/ Eric H. Chadwick \
Eric H. Chadwick (#248,769)
Chadwick@ntslaw.qom
PATTERSON THUENTE PEDERSEN. P.A. 4800IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, Mirrnes ota 5 5 402-21 0Q Telephone : (612) 349 -57 40 Facsimile : (6 12) 3 49 -9266
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTTFF
OF COUNSEL:
Scott J. Pivnick scott.pivnick@alston. com Adam D. Swain adam. swain@alston.com Benn Wilson benn.wilson@alston. com
ALSTON & BIRD LLP The Atlantic Building 950 F Street, NW ,Washington, DC 20004 Tel; (202) 239-3300 Fax: (202)239-3333
Patrick Flinn patrick.fl inn@alston. com David Kuklewicz dav i d. kukl ew icz@alston. c om
ALSTON & BIRD LLP One Atlantic Center 1201 W. Peachtree Street Atlanta, Georgia 30309 Tel.: (404) 881-7000 Fax: (404) 253-8756
-23 -

M-I Drilling Fluids UK v. Dynamic Air Et. Al.

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

M-I Drilling Fluids UK v. Dynamic Air Et. Al.

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

M-I DRILLING FLUIDS UK LTD.

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

This is an action brought by M-I Drilling Fluids UK Ltd. ("MIDF UK" or

MIDF UK is a foreign private limited company existing under the laws of

ABl l 5DQ, United Kingdom.

Air Inc. ("Dynamic Air") is a corporation

Willow Lake Blvd, Saint Paul, MN 55110.

Air Ltda. is a foreign corporation existing under the

Brazil. Upon information and belief, Dynamic Air

JURISDICTION ANP VENUE

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. $$

Air is incorporated in Minnesota,

This Court has personal jurisdiction over Dynamic Air Ltda.

Air Ltda. is vicariously

Dynamic Air Ltda. shares a

and uses substantially similar promotional materials

and advertisements. Upon information and belief; Dynamic

of the privilege of conducting

Venue is proper in this District for Dynamic

1391(c)(2) and 35 U.S.C.

1400(b) because Dynamic

resides within this

Venue is proper in this District for Dynamic

Air Ltda. under 35 U.S.C.

BACKgROUNp MIDF UK, CLEANCUT@ TECHNOLOGY, AND THE ASSERTED

MIDF UK is a leading supplier of drilling fluid systems and equipment

engineered to improve drilling performance by anticipating fluids-related problems, fluid

systems and specialty tools designed

optimize wellbore productivity, production

technology solutions to maximize production rates, and environmental solutions that

off of the rig for

One of the products and services that MIDF

offers its customers in the

t1the owner by assignment of all of the Asserted Patents.

The 217 Patent, entitled Method of Pneumatically Conveying Non-Free

the2l7 Patent is attached hereto

The 062 Patent, entitled Method and Apparatus

for Pneumatic Conveying

The 018 Patent, entitled Apparatus for Pneumatic Conveying of Drill

DYNAMIC AIR AND ITS INF'RINGING CONVEYING SYSTEM

of dry bulk solids for

Upon information and belief, Defendants design, sell and

Sometime between October 2011 and January 2012, Dynamic

rig. MIDF UK's

sister company and customel, M-I Swaco do Brasil

- Comercio, Servicos E Mineracao Ltda. C'M-I Brazil"),submitted a bid in response to

On or around February 2013, Dynamic Air Ltda. employees used such a

system to pneumatically convey

drill cuttings onto and off of the HOS Resolution

have continued this infringing activity since that time.

26. On or around August 2013, Dynamic Air Ltda. installed a similar

drill cuttings for disposal and/or further processing. Upon

information and belief, Dynamic

Air Ltda. has also installed and operates a similar

pneumatic conveyance system aboard the

the Asserted Patents.

Defendants have infringed and continue to infringe each of the Asserted

Patents by engaging in acts constituting infringement under 35 U.S.C. S 271, including

for drill cuttings currently

Defendants have also contributed

to and are contributing to the

no substantial non-infringing uses, including, but not limited to