Está en la página 1de 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION I-TEC WELL SOLUTIONS,

L.L.C., Plaintiff, vs. PEAK COMPLETION TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION NO. _____________

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

PLAINTIFFS REQUEST FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT


SECTION I. 1. PARTIES

Plaintiff i-Tec Well Solutions, L.L.C. (i-Tec) is a limited liability company

organized under the laws of the state of Texas with its principal place of business at 4529 Brittmore Road, Houston, Texas 77041-8005. 2. Defendant Peak Completion Technologies, Inc. (Peak) is a corporation organized

under the laws of the state of Texas with its principal place of business at 7710 West Highway 80, Midland, Texas 79706-2824. Peak may be served with process by serving its registered agent, Raymond Hoffman, at 7710 Highway 80 West, Midland, Texas 79703. Peak also

maintains an office in Houston at 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 2410; Houston, TX 77002. SECTION II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. The court has jurisdiction over the lawsuit pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 1338(a) and (b), 28 U.S.C. 1498, because the action concerns potential acts of patent infringement, patent validity, and unfair competition.

4. The federal courts have exclusive subject matter jurisdiction over all cases arising under the patent laws. 28 U.S.C. 1338(a). An action for patent infringement or one for a declaratory judgment that a patent is invalid, unenforceable, or not infringed arises under the patent laws. C.R. Bard, Inc. v. Schwartz, 716 F.2d 874 (Fed. Cir. 1983). 5. Plaintiff brings this claim for a declaratory judgment under both Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 57 and 28 U.S.C. 2201, 2202 seeking a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of United States Patent No. 7,926,571 (the 571 patent) owned by Peak. 6. Declaratory relief is necessary because Plaintiff has a reasonable apprehension of being sued for patent infringement by Defendant. Plaintiffs apprehension is reasonable and realistic in view of Defendants threats as to Plaintiffs acts in the United States. 1 Such

apprehension has a chilling effect on competition in this country and is likely to cause harm by interfering with Plaintiffs business opportunities. 7. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1400 and 1391(b) because both parties conduct business within this judicial district and have engaged in acts in this district and division which are the basis of the dispute made the basis of this suit. SECTION III. FACTS

8. i-Tec, founded in 2006, is an oilfield service company that designs, produces, and installs innovative completion and intervention technologies that allow energy companies to maximize the production of oil and gas from horizontal wells. 9. The first time that Peak accused i-Tec of infringement was when it filed a Complaint in the Western District of Texas, Austin Division, accusing i-Tecs multi-stage sleeve system

Peak filed Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-00086 against i-Tec in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division, on February 1, 2013, but it has not served i-Tec.

products of infringing the 571 patent. A copy of the Complaint is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit A. 10. i-Tec does not infringe the 571 patent; therefore, there is a valid case and controversy that provides this Court jurisdiction to issue a declaratory judgment. 11. In addition, i-Tecs services are conducted in accordance with the teachings of the prior art. To the extent that i-Tecs completion services infringe the claims of the 571 patent, the 571 patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C. 102, 103 and 112.. SECTION IV. COUNT 1 DECLARATORY JUDGMENT PATENT INVALIDITY U.S. PATENT NO. 7,926,571 12. Plaintiff re-alleges the facts recited in Paragraphs 1 through 11, inclusive, as if fully set forth herein. 13. 35 U.S.C. 102(b) provides: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless (b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States. 14. Peaks U.S. Patent No. 7,926,571 issued on April 19, 2011 is based on an application filed on June 8, 2007, and claims priorit y back to the filing of the 172 patent (on March 15, 2005) that was already litigated in this District. 15. The application which resulted in the grant of the 571 Patent was filed in contravention of 35 U.S.C. 102(b) because it was filed more than one year after the invention was described in a printed publication or in public use or on sale in this country. The 571 Patent is invalid under one or more of the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 102, 103 or 112.

16. Peak has asserted that 571 Patent is infringed by i-Tecs completion services. To the extent that the 571 patent covers i-Tecs completion services it is invalid inasmuch as similar completion services were in commercial use in this and other countries more than one year before the earliest priority date. COUNT 2 DECLARATORY JUDGMENT PATENT NON-INFRINGEMENT U.S. PATENT 7,926,571 17. Plaintiff re-alleges the facts recited in paragraphs 1 through 16, inclusive, as if fully set forth herein. 18. i-Tecs completion services are performed in conformance with the teachings in the prior art. 19. i-Tecs completion services do not infringe the 571 patent. SECTION V. JURY DEMAND

20. Plaintiff i-Tec Well Solutions, L.L.C. asserts its right under the Seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and demands, in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38, a trial by jury on all issues so triable. PRAYER FOR RELIEF Plaintiff i-Tec Well Solutions, L.L.C. prays for the following relief: a. A declaration that all claims of United States Patent No. 7,926,571 are invalid; b. A declaration that United States Patent No. 7,926,571 is not infringed; c. Damages in the amount permitted by statute; d. A finding that this case is an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. 285 and an award of attorneys fees and enhanced damages under the statute; e. An award of its reasonable attorneys fees; f. An award of the costs of court; and

g. Such other relief in equity and at law to which Plaintiff may be entitled. Respectfully submitted,

J. David Cabello Bar No. 03574500 WONG, CABELLO, LUTSCH, RUTHERFORD & BRUCCULERI, L.L.P. 20333 State Highway 249, Suite 600 Houston, Texas 77070 Telephone: (832) 446-2400 Facsimile: (832) 446-2424 Jeffrey Kubiak Bar No. 24028470 jkubiak@thekubiaklawfirm.com Heather Kubiak Bar No. 24001266 hkubiak@thekubiaklawfirm.com THE KUBIAK LAW FIRM PLLC 440 Louisiana, Suite 900 Houston, Texas 77002 Telephone: (713) 800-8440 Facsimile: (713) 800-8443 Attorneys for Plaintiff i-Tec Well Solutions, L.L.C.