CP Energy Services v. Petro-Flow Control: SAND COMMANDER® Patent Injunction Secured
CP Energy Services filed suit in the Western District of Texas against Petro-Flow Control (trading as Green Machine) over two patents covering its SAND COMMANDER® oilfield technology. The case resolved in 152 days with a stipulated permanent injunction barring the Green Machine product — a swift and commercially decisive outcome for the patent holder.
Swift injunction shuts down Green Machine rival in oilfield sand management
CP Energy Services, Inc. filed this patent infringement action on 16 April 2025 in the Western District of Texas (Case No. 7:25-cv-00167) against Petro-Flow Control, LLC, operating under the brand Green Machine. The suit asserted two US patents — US12173569B2 and US12173567B2 — covering the SAND COMMANDER® technology, a proprietary oilfield sand and fluid management apparatus used in upstream oil and gas operations.
The case closed on 15 September 2025, 152 days after filing, through a stipulated permanent injunction and dismissal with prejudice. Critically, the injunction is not merely a settlement term — it is a court-ordered prohibition binding Petro-Flow Control, Petro Environmental Solutions, LLC, and individual defendant Cortney LeGard from making, using, importing, offering to sell, or selling the Green Machine or any substantially similar apparatus that infringes the asserted patents. The injunction remains in effect until the patents expire or are declared invalid by a court.
The 152-day resolution suggests the defendants — referred to collectively as the LeGard Parties — accepted the injunction relatively quickly, consistent with an early commercial resolution rather than protracted litigation. Notably, the stipulation expressly states that agreeing to the injunction is not an admission of liability, preserving the defendants’ formal position while operationally halting the competing product. The terms of the underlying settlement agreement remain confidential; no damages figure is publicly disclosed.
Filing to Injunction Granted in 152 days
152 days — resolved faster than the median patent case in W.D. Texas
Stipulated permanent injunction: what the order means for both parties
Stipulated permanent injunction — court-ordered, not just contracted
Unlike a purely contractual settlement, this outcome is a court-entered permanent injunction. The Western District of Texas retains jurisdiction to enforce it. Any breach by the LeGard Parties — including selling a substantially similar apparatus — can trigger contempt proceedings, not merely breach-of-contract claims. This gives CP Energy a significantly stronger enforcement tool than a private settlement alone would provide.
Court retains enforcement jurisdictionCP Energy secures market exclusion without a damages trial
CP Energy achieved its primary commercial objective: permanent, court-backed exclusion of the Green Machine and substantially similar products from the market. The injunction covers not just Petro-Flow Control but also Petro Environmental Solutions and individual Cortney LeGard, closing common workaround routes. The patent holder bears its own legal costs, suggesting it accepted this outcome as sufficient compensation without pursuing a royalty or damages award.
Permanent market exclusion securedGreen Machine product line effectively halted — no admission of liability
The LeGard Parties are permanently enjoined from commercialising the Green Machine or substantially similar apparatus for as long as the asserted patents remain valid. The non-admission-of-liability clause preserves their formal legal position but has no practical bearing on commercial operations. Designing around both asserted patents would be necessary before re-entering this product category — a significant technical and commercial barrier.
Product line injuncted until patent expirySAND COMMANDER® IP moat strengthened in oilfield sand management
The stipulated injunction signals to the broader oilfield services market that CP Energy is prepared to enforce its SAND COMMANDER® patent portfolio aggressively and quickly. Competitors developing sand and fluid management apparatus should treat both US12173569B2 and US12173567B2 as active enforcement risks. The court’s retention of jurisdiction adds an ongoing deterrent that a private settlement would not provide.
Active enforcement precedent setFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | CP ENERGY SERVICES, INC. | Company | Oilfield services company — holder of US12173569B2 and US12173567B2 (SAND COMMANDER®)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Petro-Flow Control, LLC d/b/a Green Machine | Company | Petro-Flow Control, LLC d/b/a Green Machine — oilfield equipment manufacturer, alleged infringerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Keith C. Rawlins | Attorney | Counsel for CP ENERGY SERVICES, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Scheef & Stone LLP | Law Firm | Representing CP ENERGY SERVICES, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Emma Abigail White | Attorney | Counsel for Petro-Flow Control, LLC d/b/a Green MachineSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | John A. Powell | Attorney | Counsel for Petro-Flow Control, LLC d/b/a Green MachineSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Naman, Howell, Smith & Lee PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Petro-Flow Control, LLC d/b/a Green MachineSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulated order is notable for its breadth: the injunction covers not only Petro-Flow Control but also a second entity, Petro Environmental Solutions, LLC, and individual Cortney LeGard — suggesting CP Energy anticipated attempts to continue operations through related entities. The ‘substantially similar apparatus’ language extends protection beyond the exact Green Machine product, giving CP Energy flexibility in future enforcement actions. The court’s express retention of jurisdiction means any alleged violation returns to the same court under contempt proceedings rather than fresh litigation.
US12173569B2 & US12173567B2 — SAND COMMANDER® oilfield sand management apparatus
US12173569B2 (application US18/785174) and US12173567B2 (application US17/937083) both protect apparatus-level innovations underlying the SAND COMMANDER® product. The consecutive application numbers and shared product branding suggest these patents form a coordinated portfolio — likely covering distinct mechanical configurations or method variations of the same core sand management technology used in upstream oilfield operations. Both patents were sufficiently recently granted to remain well within their enforcement window.
Sand and fluid management at the wellsite is a commercially critical function in unconventional oil and gas production, where high sand volumes are intrinsic to hydraulic fracturing operations. Patents covering proprietary apparatus in this space carry significant exclusivity value: a single product injunction, as achieved here, can eliminate a competitor from a rapidly growing segment. The fact that CP Energy moved to assert both patents simultaneously — and obtained an injunction covering ‘substantially similar’ apparatus — signals a broad claims strategy designed to foreclose the product category, not just a single product configuration.
Should you run an FTO against US12173569B2 and US12173567B2?
Any company developing, manufacturing, or commercialising oilfield sand management or fluid control apparatus — particularly products competing in the wellsite sand handling category — should treat US12173569B2 and US12173567B2 as priority FTO targets. The stipulated permanent injunction in this case confirms that CP Energy actively monitors and enforces its SAND COMMANDER® portfolio, and the ‘substantially similar apparatus’ injunction language means that minor design changes may not be sufficient to avoid exposure.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your apparatus design against the independent and dependent claims of both asserted patents, identify prosecution history estoppel limitations, and surface potentially invalidating prior art filed before each application’s priority date. For oilfield equipment teams preparing a product launch or acquisition in the sand management space, this analysis should precede any go-to-market decision.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US12173569B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar oilfield equipment patent infringement cases in W.D. Texas
Explore patent infringement cases involving oilfield apparatus and sand management technology litigated in the Western District of Texas with comparable enforcement strategies.
What this case signals for the oilfield services IP landscape
A 152-day path to a permanent injunction in W.D. Texas sets a benchmark for IP enforcement speed in oilfield equipment.
Permanent injunctions via stipulation are faster and more durable than damages trials
This case demonstrates that patent holders in oilfield services can achieve court-backed market exclusion in under six months by targeting a stipulated injunction rather than a full damages verdict. The court-retained jurisdiction transforms compliance from a contractual obligation into a contempt-of-court risk for defendants.
Individual defendants matter: Cortney LeGard personally enjoined
Naming and enjoining the individual operator alongside the corporate entities — including a second LLC — closes the ‘new company’ workaround. R&D and product teams at competing oilfield equipment companies should note that infringing apparatus and their developers can face personal injunctive exposure, not just corporate liability.
CP v Petro-Flow — key questions answered
The case settled after 152 days with a stipulated permanent injunction entered by the Western District of Texas. Petro-Flow Control, Petro Environmental Solutions, and Cortney LeGard are permanently enjoined from making, using, or selling the Green Machine or substantially similar apparatus. The case was dismissed with prejudice; each party bears its own costs.
CP Energy asserted US12173569B2 (application US18/785174) and US12173567B2 (application US17/937083). Both patents relate to the SAND COMMANDER® oilfield sand and fluid management apparatus. The injunction covers both patents and remains in effect until they expire or are declared invalid by a court.
The injunction is a court order, not merely a contractual term, meaning violations can be pursued as contempt of court. It applies to the Green Machine and any substantially similar apparatus, extending the prohibition beyond the precise product. Competitors developing comparable sand management equipment should conduct an FTO analysis against both asserted patents before commercialising any product in this category.
The public record does not detail the corporate relationship between Petro-Flow Control and Petro Environmental Solutions. However, the inclusion of a second entity and individual Cortney LeGard in the injunction is consistent with a strategy to prevent continuation of infringing activity through related or successor entities — a common enforcement tactic when individual operators control multiple corporate vehicles.
No. The case did not go to trial. It resolved through a settlement-backed stipulated permanent injunction and dismissal with prejudice after 152 days. No damages figure is publicly disclosed, and the non-admission-of-liability clause preserves the defendants’ formal position. The underlying settlement agreement terms remain confidential.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.