AEP Excluded AssetCo v. Bellanergy: Drilling Patent Case Remanded to Texas State Court
AEP Excluded AssetCo, LLC filed suit against Bellanergy, LLC in the Texas Southern District Court over US7347459B2, a patent covering coupling technology for drilling-with-casing operations. After 530 days in federal court, the case was remanded in its entirety to the 151st Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas, with each party bearing its own attorneys’ fees.
Federal infringement action over drilling coupling patent sent back to Texas state court
AEP Excluded AssetCo, LLC initiated this patent infringement action against Bellanergy, LLC on 27 September 2023 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The dispute centres on US7347459B2, a patent covering coupling technology designed for drilling-with-casing operations — a technique widely used in oil and gas well construction to reduce non-productive time. Advance Energy Partners, LLC was also joined as a third-party defendant during proceedings, adding complexity to the jurisdictional posture of the case.
On 10 March 2025, the district court granted an unopposed motion to remand filed jointly by plaintiff AEP Excluded AssetCo and third-party defendant Advance Energy Partners. The court ordered the case remanded in its entirety to the 151st Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas. The unopposed nature of the motion suggests the parties reached a mutual understanding on the jurisdictional question, though the public record does not disclose any underlying settlement or substantive resolution on the merits.
The 530-day federal court tenure — from September 2023 through March 2025 — is notable for a case that ultimately returned to the state forum from which it was presumably removed. The remand, agreed to by both sides, typically signals either a defect in the basis for federal jurisdiction or a strategic reassessment by the plaintiff. What drove that reassessment, and whether the merits of the drilling coupling infringement claim will be litigated in Harris County, remains to be determined from the public record.
Filing to Case Remanded in 530 days
530 days in federal court before remand to Harris County state court
Case remanded to Harris County: what the transfer means for both parties
Remand returns the case to the originating state court
A federal remand order transfers the case back to the state court from which it was removed — here, the 151st Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas. The district court’s order was triggered by an unopposed motion, meaning neither party contested the return to state forum. All further proceedings on the drilling coupling infringement claim will now occur under Texas state court rules and docket management.
Jurisdictional transferAEP’s infringement claims survive — but in a new forum
Because the remand was unopposed and not accompanied by a dismissal or settlement on the merits, AEP Excluded AssetCo’s infringement claim under US7347459B2 is presumed to continue in Harris County state court. Plaintiffs in remanded patent cases can face procedural headwinds, however, as Texas state courts lack the specialised patent-law infrastructure of federal district courts and the Federal Circuit appellate path.
Claim continues in state courtBellanergy faces a different litigation environment in state court
For Bellanergy, the shift to Harris County state court changes discovery rules, motion practice, and the availability of patent-specific procedural tools. Notably, federal invalidity defences and IPR petitions remain available regardless of forum, but the strategic calculus around timing and cost may shift materially. The party-by-party cost allocation — each side bears its own fees — suggests no concession was made on the merits at this stage.
Forum shift, no merits rulingDrilling-with-casing coupling IP remains actively contested
US7347459B2 covering coupling technology for drilling-with-casing operations remains in force and actively asserted. Companies operating in the directional drilling, casing running, and well construction segments should note that the remand does not extinguish the patent’s enforceability. Competitors and licensees in this space should monitor the Harris County docket for any substantive rulings on infringement or validity.
Patent remains enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Aep Excluded Assetco, LLC | Company | Oil and gas IP holding entity — holder of US7347459B2 (drilling-with-casing coupling)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Bellanergy, LLC | Company | Bellanergy, LLC — energy sector company accused of infringing drilling coupling patentSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Alexander Reed Ades | Attorney | Counsel for Aep Excluded Assetco, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Catherine Tipper-McWhorter | Attorney | Counsel for Aep Excluded Assetco, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Matthew Charles Zorn | Attorney | Counsel for Aep Excluded Assetco, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Timothy S. McConn | Attorney | Counsel for Aep Excluded Assetco, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Yetter Coleman LLP | Law Firm | Representing Aep Excluded Assetco, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Benjamin Eliot New | Attorney | Counsel for Bellanergy, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Greenspoon Marder PA | Law Firm | Representing Bellanergy, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Southern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s remand order, entered on an unopposed motion, resolves the federal jurisdictional question without reaching the merits of the infringement claim. The phrase ‘remanded in its entirety’ confirms that no claims were severed or retained at the federal level. The cost allocation — each party bearing its own attorneys’ fees — is consistent with a procedural resolution rather than a substantive win for either side. The drilling coupling infringement dispute under US7347459B2 is now squarely before the 151st Judicial District Court of Harris County for all further proceedings.
US7347459B2 — Coupling for Drilling-With-Casing Operations
US7347459B2, filed under application number US11/117990, protects coupling technology specifically engineered for drilling-with-casing (DwC) operations — a technique that combines the drilling and casing steps of well construction into a single run. This approach reduces non-productive time and limits formation damage by eliminating the need to retrieve the drill string before running casing. The patent’s claim scope around coupling assemblies sits at a technically critical juncture in the DwC tool string, making it strategically significant for any operator or manufacturer in this space.
Drilling-with-casing technology has gained sustained adoption across onshore unconventional plays, where efficiency gains directly impact well economics. US7347459B2 represents an assertion in a competitive segment where multiple tool manufacturers and rental companies offer DwC systems. The patent’s active enforcement — now continuing in Texas state court — signals that the holder regards the coupling design as commercially differentiated. Competitors and downstream users of DwC assemblies should treat this patent as a live enforcement risk and conduct targeted FTO analysis against their current product configurations.
Should your team run an FTO against US7347459B2?
Any company manufacturing, selling, renting, or using coupling assemblies in drilling-with-casing operations in the United States should assess its exposure to US7347459B2. The patent’s active assertion in litigation — with the infringement claim surviving remand and continuing in Harris County — confirms it is being enforced. Tool manufacturers, well services companies, and operators relying on DwC systems are the most directly at-risk segments. The coupling’s position in the tool string means even incremental design variations should be assessed against the issued claims before commercial deployment.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables R&D and legal teams to map their drilling coupling designs against the full claim set of US7347459B2, identify potentially distinguishing prior art, and flag design-around opportunities before litigation risk materialises. Eureka’s claim-by-claim analysis surfaces the specific coupling features at issue and benchmarks them against the patent’s prosecution history, giving IP teams a defensible basis for product launch decisions in the DwC tool segment.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7347459B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar drilling technology patent cases in Texas federal and state courts
Cases involving drilling equipment and well construction patents litigated in Texas Southern District Court and Harris County state court, including DwC and casing technology disputes.
What this case signals for the oil and gas drilling IP landscape
A federal-to-state remand in a drilling technology patent case raises significant forum strategy questions for the energy sector.
Unopposed remands signal jurisdictional vulnerability in patent cases
When both parties agree to return a patent case to state court after over a year in federal proceedings, it often indicates a defect in the original removal basis — most commonly incomplete diversity or a weak federal question hook. IP teams asserting or defending drilling technology patents should scrutinise the grounds for federal jurisdiction at the outset to avoid costly forum reversals.
State court patent litigation carries distinct procedural risks
Texas state courts do not apply Markman claim construction hearings in the same structured way as federal district courts, and appellate review does not run through the Federal Circuit. Patent holders asserting complex mechanical patents like US7347459B2 in state forums should anticipate differences in how claim scope disputes are handled and plan expert strategy accordingly.
Aep v Bellanergy — key questions answered
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas remanded the case in its entirety to the 151st Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas on 10 March 2025. The remand was granted on an unopposed motion filed jointly by plaintiff AEP Excluded AssetCo and third-party defendant Advance Energy Partners. No merits ruling on the infringement claim was issued.
The patent at issue is US7347459B2, filed under application number US11/117990. It covers coupling technology for drilling-with-casing operations — a method that combines drilling and casing into a single well construction run. The patent remains in force and the infringement claim continues in Harris County state court following the federal remand.
The public record shows the remand was granted on an unopposed motion, meaning both parties agreed to return the case to Harris County state court. The specific grounds for remand are not detailed in the available order. Unopposed remands typically suggest either a defect in the original basis for federal removal jurisdiction or a mutual strategic decision by the parties to proceed in state court.
No. A federal remand order is a jurisdictional transfer, not a ruling on the merits. US7347459B2 remains in force and the infringement claim against Bellanergy was not dismissed. The dispute will now be adjudicated in the 151st Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas. The patent’s commercial enforceability is unaffected by the change of forum.
Companies in the drilling-with-casing segment should note that US7347459B2 remains actively asserted. The shift to Harris County state court changes the procedural environment — Texas state courts do not follow Federal Circuit claim construction precedent in the same structured way, and discovery rules differ. Tool manufacturers and well services operators with coupling products in the DwC segment should conduct FTO analysis and monitor the Harris County docket for substantive rulings.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.