Westerngeco L.L.C. v. Ion Geophysical Corp.
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21251
| S.D. Tex. | 2011Background
- WesternGeco sues Ion Geophysical and Fugro Defendants for infringement of five WesternGeco patents related to marine seismic streamer positioning.
- Patents at issue include the ’017, ’607, ’967, ’520 (Bittleston group) and ’038 (Zajac) patents.
- The Chukchi Sea seismic survey using Ion technology is the alleged infringing activity; Fugro Defendants allegedly supplied and managed equipment and services from their Houston office and via offshore vessels.
- Fugro U.S. Defendants were sued in a separate 2010 action; the Fugro Norway Defendants were joined in the Rule 12 motion and asserted lack of personal jurisdiction.
- WesternGeco asserts past and ongoing infringement, and seeks, among other remedies, a declaratory judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 2201 if appropriate.
- The court grants in part and denies in part the Fugro motion to dismiss; denies the Norway defendants’ lack of personal jurisdiction challenge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has personal jurisdiction over Fugro Norway Defendants | Fugro Norway Defendants have ongoing Texas contacts; coordinated operations with Fugro U.S. Defendants; solicitation and sale of services to Texas customers. | Defendants lack continuous and systematic contacts; activities directed at Texas are insufficient for jurisdiction. | Court finds prima facie case for both specific and general jurisdiction over Fugro Norway Defendants. |
| Whether WesternGeco's Form 18 patent complaint states a claim post-Twombly | Form 18 structure suffices to plead direct, inducement, and contributory infringement. | Form 18 is insufficient for detailed infringement allegations and specific acts by each defendant. | Form 18 suffices; inducement and contributory infringement pled with adequate particularity at this stage. |
| Whether acts in the Chukchi Sea constitute direct infringement under § 271(a) | Chukchi Sea activities infringe in U.S. territory via EEZ/OCS and vessel use. | Chukchi Sea location is outside U.S. territory; no direct infringement under § 271(a). | Direct infringement claims under § 271(a) regarding Chukchi Sea acts are not actionable. |
| Whether § 271(F) infringement claim survives | Dutch Harbor components supplied for the Geo Celtic facilitate infringing use in the United States. | § 271(f) cannot be satisfied given the location and nature of supply. | § 271(F) claim survives; sufficient pleaded facts to claim components supplied from the U.S. intended for infringing combination abroad. |
| Whether the EEZ does or does not constitute U.S. territory for patent purposes | EEZ activity may implicate U.S. patent rights. | EEZ remains outside U.S. territorial territory; patent law not extended to EEZ absent congressional act. | EEZ is not U.S. territory for patent purposes; patent rights do not extend to infringement occurring there. |
Key Cases Cited
- Akro Corp. v. Luker, 45 F.3d 1541 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (minimum contacts and due process guide jurisdiction)
- Synthes (U.S.A.) v. G.M. dos Reis Jr. Ind. Com. de Equip. Medico, 563 F.3d 1285 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (specific vs. general jurisdiction standards)
- Silent Drive, Inc. v. Strong Indus., Inc., 326 F.3d 1194 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (specific jurisdiction requires purposeful direction and relatedness)
- McZeal v. Sprint Nextel Corp., 501 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (collective pleadings against multiple defendants permissible)
- Breckenridge Pharm., Inc. v. Metabolite Labs., Inc., 444 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (five Burger King factors for reasonableness of jurisdiction)
- DSU Med. Corp. v. JMS Co., 471 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (induced and contributory infringement considerations post-knowledge)