Coil Chem & Noles IP v. Durachem — Completion Fluid Patent Claims Dismissed With Prejudice
Coil Chem, LLC and Noles Intellectual Properties, LLC brought a patent infringement action against Durachem Production Co. and affiliates over completion fluid hydration trailer technology protected by two US patents. After 1,604 days of litigation in the Western District of Texas, all parties jointly stipulated dismissal with prejudice — permanently closing the claims on both sides.
A 4-year completion fluid patent dispute ends by mutual surrender in W.D. Texas
Filed on 30 September 2019 in the Western District of Texas, this infringement action was brought by Coil Chem, LLC and co-plaintiff Noles Intellectual Properties, LLC against Durachem Production Co., its affiliate DuraChem Production Services, LLC, and individual defendant James Buck Briggs. The asserted patents — US9682354B2 and US9782732B2 — cover completion fluid hydration trailer technology used in oil and gas operations, and the accused products were identified as DuraChem’s oil and gas completion fluid hydration trailers.
The case closed on 20 February 2024 via a joint stipulation of dismissal filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Critically, both sides agreed that the dismissal would be with prejudice as to the asserted patents, and that each party would bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. A Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulation requires the consent of all parties, which signals that the resolution was mutually negotiated rather than unilaterally initiated.
At 1,604 days, the case ran well beyond the median patent infringement lifecycle, suggesting sustained substantive litigation before the parties converged on settlement terms. The with-prejudice designation prevents any future refiling of the same patent claims against the same defendants, effectively providing Durachem with a permanent shield on these specific patents. Whether any confidential licensing arrangement accompanied the dismissal is not reflected in the public record.
Filing to dismissal in 1604 days
1,604 days — over 4.3 years from filing to closure in W.D. Texas
Joint stipulation with prejudice — what the final order means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires all parties to consent
Unlike a unilateral voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a stipulation under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires the signed agreement of all parties. This signals that both plaintiffs and all three defendants actively negotiated and agreed to the exit terms. Courts treat such stipulations as binding contracts, and the with-prejudice clause here carries the same legal weight as a final judgment on the merits.
Bilateral consent requiredWith prejudice extinguishes the patent claims permanently
The joint stipulation explicitly designates dismissal as with prejudice as to the asserted patents — US9682354B2 and US9782732B2. This means Coil Chem and Noles IP cannot refile infringement claims based on these patents against Durachem Production Co., DuraChem Production Services, or James Buck Briggs. The patents themselves remain in force, but this defendant set is effectively immunised from further suit on the same instruments.
Permanent bar on refilingEach-party-bears-own-costs signals a negotiated exit
The stipulation expressly provides that each side bears its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. In patent litigation, this outcome is consistent with a negotiated settlement where neither party achieved a decisive procedural or substantive advantage. Had one side prevailed or been found to have litigated in bad faith, a fee-shifting motion under 35 U.S.C. § 285 would typically have been in play. The mutual cost arrangement suggests a measured, arms-length resolution.
No fee-shifting appliedIndividual named — James Buck Briggs — also released
The inclusion of James Buck Briggs as an individual defendant alongside the corporate entities is notable. Naming individuals in patent suits can signal claims of wilful infringement or personal liability theories. The with-prejudice dismissal covers Briggs as well as the corporate defendants, meaning the plaintiffs have released all personal claims against him tied to the asserted patents. The underlying basis for his individual inclusion is not detailed in the public record.
Individual liability resolvedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Coil Chem, LLC | Company | Oil & gas IP licensing entity — holder of US9682354B2 and US9782732B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Durachem Production Co. | Company | Oilfield services company providing completion fluid hydration trailers and related servicesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | William P. Ramey , III | Attorney | Counsel for Coil Chem, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge / | Chief Judge | Texas Western District Court — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Stipulation of dismissal — official text
The joint stipulation invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), requiring consent from all parties — both plaintiff entities and all three defendants. The explicit with-prejudice designation as to the asserted patents carries the force of a final judgment, permanently barring re-litigation of these claims in any forum. The mutual cost-bearing clause, while commercially neutral on its face, is typically consistent with a negotiated settlement rather than a clear win for either side. No admission of liability or finding of infringement is recorded.
US9682354B2 & US9782732B2 — Completion Fluid Hydration Trailer Technology
US9682354B2 (application no. US14/528648) and US9782732B2 (application no. US15/413699) both relate to completion fluid hydration trailer technology used in oil and gas well completion operations. These systems are designed to hydrate and mix fluid components — such as polymer-based completion fluids — at the wellsite. The two patents appear to represent a core filing and a related continuation, with US9782732B2 carrying the later application number, suggesting incremental claim development around the same underlying invention.
For oilfield service companies, completion fluid systems represent high-utilisation equipment deployed across large volumes of well completions — making them attractive targets for patent assertion. The existence of two related patents covering this space suggests the plaintiffs built a layered claim portfolio designed to capture both apparatus and method variations. Any competitor producing, selling, or leasing hydration trailer equipment should assess whether their product design and operational processes fall within the claim scope of either patent, particularly given that both remain in force despite this case’s closure.
Should your completion fluid equipment team run an FTO against US9682354B2?
Any oilfield service company manufacturing, distributing, or operating completion fluid hydration trailers should treat US9682354B2 and US9782732B2 as live FTO risks. The dismissal with prejudice in this case protects only Durachem and its named affiliates — it does not affect the enforceability of these patents against any other party. If your product line involves wellsite fluid hydration or polymer mixing systems, a freedom-to-operate review is a prudent first step before scaling operations or entering new markets.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and legal teams to map their product specifications against the claims of US9682354B2 and US9782732B2 in minutes, surfacing overlap risks and identifying prior art that may support design-around or validity challenges. Claim monitoring alerts can flag any new continuation filings by Noles Intellectual Properties — a critical capability given the existing continuation relationship between the two asserted patents.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9682354B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent infringement cases in oilfield completion fluid technology
PatSnap Eureka tracks related litigation across truck body equipment, vehicle accessories, and comparable infringement actions in the Georgia district system.
What this case signals for the oilfield services IP landscape
A four-year dispute over completion fluid technology, ending with permanent bars on refiling, carries real strategic weight for oilfield IP holders and operators alike.
Completion fluid technology is actively contested IP territory
The assertion of two related patents covering hydration trailer technology signals that plaintiffs Coil Chem and Noles IP treat this portfolio as commercially significant enforcement assets. Oilfield service providers operating similar equipment should treat US9682354B2 and US9782732B2 as active risks to monitor, even after this specific dispute has closed.
With-prejudice exits after long litigation often mask confidential terms
When cases exceeding four years resolve by mutual stipulation with prejudice, the public record rarely tells the full story. A concurrent licensing agreement, royalty arrangement, or product design-around may have driven the settlement but would not appear in court filings. Competitors should not read the dismissal as a finding of non-infringement.
Coil v Durachem — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice by joint stipulation under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) on 20 February 2024, after 1,604 days of litigation. Coil Chem and Noles Intellectual Properties had sued Durachem Production Co., DuraChem Production Services, and James Buck Briggs for infringing US9682354B2 and US9782732B2. Each party agreed to bear its own costs and fees.
Two US patents were asserted: US9682354B2 (application no. US14/528648) and US9782732B2 (application no. US15/413699). Both relate to oil and gas completion fluid hydration trailer technology. The accused products were DuraChem’s completion fluid hydration trailers used in oilfield operations.
Dismissal with prejudice in a patent case means the plaintiff is permanently barred from refiling the same claims against the same defendants. It carries the legal weight of a final judgment on the merits. In this case, Coil Chem and Noles IP cannot sue Durachem, DuraChem Production Services, or James Buck Briggs again based on US9682354B2 or US9782732B2.
No. A dismissal with prejudice by stipulation does not constitute a finding of invalidity or non-infringement. The patents US9682354B2 and US9782732B2 remain in force and can still be enforced against any third party not covered by the stipulation. Companies with similar products should not interpret this outcome as a clearance of the patent claims.
The public record does not specify the basis for Briggs’s individual inclusion alongside the corporate defendants. Naming individuals in patent suits may indicate claims of wilful infringement, personal direction of infringing activity, or other liability theories. The with-prejudice stipulation covers Briggs personally, meaning all patent-based claims against him were also permanently extinguished.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.