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

I

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

Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs

1-

41 as though fully set forth herein. Defendants have directly infringed and are infringing the 217 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.

44.

Defendants have also contributed

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.

Specifically, Defendants have been aware of the 217 patent through many

charurels 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 Plaintiff s CLEANCUT@ system and the patents in suit

are

now employed by Dynamic Air Ltda. and took this knowledge with them to Dynamic Air Ltda. and its parent Dynamic Air Inc.

46.,

Defendants have also had knowledge of the 217 patent as of the August 29,

2013 notice letter sent

to

Defendants indicating that Defendants contribute

to

the

infringement of the claims of the 217 patent.
47

.

Defendants have also induced and are inducing the infringement of the 2I7

Patent

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

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.

As shown above in paragraphs 45 and 46, Defendants have had knowledge

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.

Defendants' infringement

of the 217 Patent has caused and continues to

cause damage

to Plaintiff in an amount to be determined at trial. Defendants have

continued to infringe the 217 patent even after Defendants had knowledge of the patent
and so such infringement is

willful and Plaintiff is entitled to enhanced

damages.

51.
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 217 Patent.

52.
285.

Defendants' infringement

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.

Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs

52 as though fully set forth herein.

Defendants have directly infringed and are infringing the l}4Patent 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 Piruracle.

55.

Defendants have also contributed

to and are contributing to

the

infringement of the 124 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 information and belief, Defendants have performed the acts that constitute contributory infringement with knowledge of the

!24

Patent and knowledge that the pneumatic

conveyance systems were especially made or especially adapted for infringing use of the

124 Patent,

ffid 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 infringing way.

56.

Specifically, Defendants have been aware of the 124 patent through many

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-

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 Plaintiff s 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

57.

Defendants have also had knowledge of the 124 patent as of the August 29,

2013 notice letter sent to Defendants indicating that Defendants contribute
infringement of the claims of the I24 patent

to

the

58.
Patent

Defendants have also induced and are inducing the infringement of the 124

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

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.

As shown above in paragraphs 56 and 57, Defendants have had knowledge

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.

Defendants' infringement

of

the

124 Patent has caused and continues to

cause damage

to Plaintiff in an amount to be determined at trial. Defendants have

continued to infringe the 124 patent even after Defendants had knowledge of the patent
and so such infringement is

willful and Plaintiff is entitled to enhanced

damages.

62.

Defendants' acts have caused, and unless restrained and enjoined, will

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.

Defendants' infringement

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.

Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs

l-

63 as though fully set forth herein. Defendants have directly infringed and are infringing the 062 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.

-16-

66.
infringement

Defendants have also contributed

to and are contributing to

the

of the A62 Patent by others in this Districi and elsewhere in the United
by the activities of any end users, including

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

Patent and knowledge that the pneumatic

conveyance systems were especially made or especially adapted for infringing use of the

062 Patent, ffid 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 infringing way.

67.

Specifically, Defendants have been aware of the 062 patent through many

channels including their general knowledge of the industry and of Plaintiff s operations. Defendants and MIDF UK's customer,

MJ 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 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.

Defendants have also had knowledge of the 062 patent as of the August 29,

2013 notice letter sent

to

Defendants indicating that Defendants contribute

to

the

infringement of the claims of the 062 patent.

t7-

69.
Patent

Defendants have also induced and are inducing the infringement of the 062

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

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.

As shown above in paragraphs 67 and 68, Defendants have had knowledge

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 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

pneurnatic conveyance systems in an infringing way.

72.

Defendanti' infringement of the 062 Patent has caused and continues to

cause damage

to Plaintiff in an amount to be determined at trial. Defendants have

continued to infringe the 062patent even after Defendants had knowledge of the patent
and so such infringement is

willful and Plaintiff is entitled to enhanced

damages.

73.

Defendants' acts have caused, and unless restrained and enjoined, will

continue to cause, irreparable injury and damage to Plaintiff for which there is no

-18-

adequate remedy at

law.

Unless enjoined by this Court, Defendants

will

continue to

infringe the 062Patent.

74.
285.

Defendants' infringement

of the 062 Patent is

exceptional and entitles
$

Plaintiff to attorneys' fees and costs incurred in prosecuting this action under 35 U.S.C

COUNT V

INFRTNGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,544,018

75. 76.

Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs

l-

74 as though fully set forth herein. Defendants have directly infringed and are infringing the 018 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.

77.

Defendants have also contributed

to

and are contributing

to

the

infringement of the 018 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 information and belief, Defendants have performed the acts that constitute contributory infringement with knowledge

of the 018 Patent and knowledge that the

pneumatic

conveyance systems were especially made or especially adapted for infringing use of the

018 Patent,

ffid were not staple articles or

commodities

of

commerce suitable for

-t9-

substantial non-infringing use. That is, Defendants' pneumatic conveyance systems were

specifically designed to convey, store, and/or transport drill cuttings in an infringing way.

78.

Specifically, Defendants have been aware of the 018 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 Plaintiff s CLEANCUT@ system and the patents in suit

are

now employed by Dynamic Air Ltda. and took this knowledge with them to Dynamic Air Ltda. and its parent Dynamic Air Inc.

79.

Defendants have also had knowledge of the 018 patent as of the August 29,

2013 notice letter sent

to

Defendants indicating that Defendants contribute

to

the

infringement of the claims of the 018 patent

80..
Patent

Defendants have also induced and are inducing the infringement of the 018

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

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 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 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

continued to infringe the 018 patent even after Defendants had knowledge of the patent
and so such infringement is

willful

and

Plaintiff is entitled to enhanced damages.

84.
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 018 Patent.

85.

Defendants' infringement

of the 018 Patent is exceptional and entitles
$

Plaintiff to attorneys' fees and costs incurred in prosecuting this action under 35 U.S.C
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 -

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful