Crusoe Energy v. Upstream Data: Flare Gas Patent Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
Crusoe Energy Systems LLC filed suit against Upstream Data Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting four patents covering Digital Flare Mitigation technology. The case was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice just 97 days after filing, with each party bearing its own costs.
A fast exit: Crusoe drops flare gas IP suit before it gains traction
On 24 July 2025, Crusoe Energy Systems LLC filed a patent infringement action against Upstream Data Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Rodney Gilstrap. The complaint asserted four US patents — US10862309B2, US10862307B2, US11451059B2, and US11437821B2 — covering digital flare gas mitigation systems and methods. The accused products were Upstream Data’s flare gas mitigation products and services, which compete directly with Crusoe’s proprietary Digital Flare Mitigation® platform.
The case closed on 29 October 2025, just 97 days after filing, when Crusoe filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice. Judge Gilstrap accepted the notice and formally dismissed all of Crusoe’s claims against Upstream Data with prejudice. The court directed each party to bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees, and denied all pending relief requests as moot. A dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits — Crusoe is permanently barred from asserting the same four patents against Upstream Data in a future action.
The 97-day lifecycle is notably short even for cases that settle early in E.D. Tex., suggesting resolution likely occurred before formal discovery commenced or a scheduling order was entered. The public record is silent on whether any licensing agreement, commercial settlement, or business arrangement was reached between the parties — voluntary dismissal with prejudice is frequently, though not always, associated with a confidential resolution. What drove Crusoe to file — and then quickly abandon — an enforcement action covering core flare-gas mitigation IP remains commercially significant for others in this sector.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 97 days
97 days — resolved before discovery or claim construction in E.D. Tex.
Dismissed with prejudice: what this outcome means for both parties
Voluntary dismissal with prejudice is a final, permanent bar
Under FRCP Rule 41(a), a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss a case, but once filed with prejudice, the dismissal operates as a final judgment on the merits. Crusoe cannot refile this infringement action based on these four patents against Upstream Data in any federal court. Judge Gilstrap’s order accepting the notice formalised this finality, closing the docket with no substantive ruling on validity or infringement.
Rule 41(a) — final on meritsPrejudice confirmed — public record reveals no settlement terms
The verdict text explicitly states dismissal ‘with prejudice,’ which is legally distinct from a dismissal without prejudice (which would preserve Crusoe’s right to refile). The court record does not disclose whether a monetary settlement, licence, or other commercial arrangement accompanied the dismissal. The with-prejudice designation is the operative legal fact; any underlying business terms remain confidential between the parties.
Refiling permanently barredUpstream Data exits with no admission of liability
Upstream Data faces no injunction, no damages award, and no admission of infringement. The court’s order denying all pending relief as moot means no adverse ruling was entered against the defendant. Crucially, because the case ended without a validity ruling, the four asserted Crusoe patents remain presumptively valid — Upstream Data did not secure a finding of invalidity that could be used defensively in future disputes.
No liability — no invalidity rulingCrusoe’s flare gas patents remain in force against the broader market
The dismissal removes Upstream Data specifically from Crusoe’s enforcement scope on these four patents, but the patents themselves remain active and enforceable against other market participants. Competitors operating modular or mobile flare gas mitigation systems — a rapidly growing segment driven by oilfield emissions regulation — should treat these patents as live enforcement risk. The speed of resolution and mutual cost-bearing suggests the dispute was likely contained commercially rather than resolved on technical merit.
Patents remain enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Crusoe Energy Systems LLC | Company | Flare gas monetisation company — holder of US10862309B2 and three related patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Upstream Data, Inc. | Company | Canadian oilfield technology company offering modular flare gas mitigation products and servicesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael E. Jones | Attorney | Counsel for Crusoe Energy Systems LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael Wolfe | Attorney | Counsel for Crusoe Energy Systems LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Naveen Modi | Attorney | Counsel for Crusoe Energy Systems LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Shaun William Hassett | Attorney | Counsel for Crusoe Energy Systems LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Paul Hastings LLP | Law Firm | Representing Crusoe Energy Systems LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Paul Hastings LLP (Washington) | Law Firm | Representing Crusoe Energy Systems LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Potter Minton PC | Law Firm | Representing Crusoe Energy Systems LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Deron R. Dacus | Attorney | Counsel for Upstream Data, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | The Dacus Firm PC | Law Firm | Representing Upstream Data, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order tracks the precise language of Rule 41(a)(2), accepting the notice and dismissing ‘with prejudice’ — a formulation that forecloses any future action by Crusoe against Upstream Data on these specific patents. The directive that ‘parties are to bear their own costs’ is a deliberate judicial choice: it neither rewards Upstream Data as a prevailing party nor penalises Crusoe for the filing. The denial of all pending relief as moot confirms no substantive patent law rulings — on validity, claim construction, or infringement — were made at any point in the 97-day proceeding.
US10862309B2 — Digital flare gas mitigation and power generation systems
The four asserted patents — US10862309B2, US10862307B2, US11451059B2, and US11437821B2 — span two application families and cover systems and methods for capturing and monetising flare gas at oil and gas production sites, primarily by powering modular data centre or computing workloads. The earliest applications (US16/529152 and US16/694883) were filed circa 2019, establishing priority in the early commercialisation wave of flare gas computing. The later continuation pairs (US17/575483 and US17/575506) extend protection into more specific system configurations and power management methods.
Crusoe’s Digital Flare Mitigation® platform sits at the intersection of oil and gas infrastructure and distributed computing — a space attracting significant investment as ESG pressure on flaring intensifies globally. Holding four granted US patents across two families gives Crusoe a defensible IP perimeter around core system architectures. For competitors building modular flare gas mitigation units — particularly those offering behind-the-meter computing or cryptocurrency mining as the load — these patents represent meaningful freedom-to-operate risk that predates this litigation and persists beyond its resolution.
Should you run an FTO against Crusoe Energy’s flare gas mitigation patents?
Any company developing, manufacturing, or deploying flare gas mitigation systems that incorporate on-site computing, data centre, or power conversion workloads should treat Crusoe’s four-patent portfolio as a live FTO priority. This applies to oilfield technology vendors, modular data centre operators, and energy companies piloting flare-to-compute programmes. The dismissal of this case does not retire these patents — it removes only Upstream Data from their immediate enforcement scope.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product’s technical claims against the claim scope of US10862309B2, US10862307B2, US11451059B2, and US11437821B2 in minutes, flagging prosecution history disclaimers and identifying design-around opportunities. Eureka also surfaces the full continuation family and any pending applications that could extend Crusoe’s coverage — giving your R&D and legal teams a complete picture before a product launch or partnership decision in the flare gas sector.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10862309B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar flare gas and oilfield energy tech patent cases in E.D. Tex.
Cases involving oilfield energy technology and digital flare mitigation patents before Judge Gilstrap in the Eastern District of Texas follow distinctive claim construction and scheduling patterns.
What this case signals for the flare gas mitigation IP landscape
A fast with-prejudice exit in E.D. Tex. rarely means the underlying IP conflict is resolved — it often signals a strategic reset.
Crusoe’s four-patent portfolio signals broad enforcement intent
Asserting four patents simultaneously across two application families suggests Crusoe is using a portfolio enforcement strategy rather than targeting a single narrow claim. Competitors in the flare gas monetisation space should audit product designs against all four asserted patents — US10862309B2, US10862307B2, US11451059B2, and US11437821B2 — not just the lead filing.
E.D. Tex. filing signals aggressive enforcement posture
Judge Gilstrap’s docket in the Eastern District of Texas is among the most patent-plaintiff-friendly venues in the US. Filing here — even for a case that resolved in 97 days — signals that Crusoe is willing to use high-pressure litigation tactics. Other flare gas technology companies should treat this filing as a warning shot, not a one-off dispute.
Crusoe v Upstream — key questions answered
Crusoe Energy Systems LLC filed a patent infringement suit against Upstream Data Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas on 24 July 2025. The case was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice by Crusoe on 29 October 2025, just 97 days after filing. Judge Gilstrap accepted the notice and ordered each party to bear its own costs. No substantive rulings on validity or infringement were issued.
Crusoe asserted four patents: US10862309B2, US10862307B2, US11451059B2, and US11437821B2. These span two application families and cover digital flare gas mitigation systems and methods, including technology for capturing waste gas at oilfield sites to power computing or data centre workloads. All four patents remain in force and were not invalidated by this case.
A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final judgment on the merits under FRCP Rule 41(a). Crusoe is permanently barred from reasserting these four patents against Upstream Data Inc. in any future federal court action. However, Crusoe retains full rights to enforce the same patents against other third parties in the flare gas mitigation market.
The public court record does not disclose any settlement agreement, licence, or financial terms. The order confirming dismissal with prejudice is silent on any commercial arrangement. The mutual cost-bearing provision — unusual when a plaintiff simply walks away — is consistent with, but does not confirm, a confidential resolution between the parties.
Yes. All four asserted patents — US10862309B2, US10862307B2, US11451059B2, and US11437821B2 — remain granted and enforceable. No invalidity findings, claim construction orders, or adverse rulings were issued during the 97-day proceeding. Companies in the flare gas monetisation and oilfield computing sector should treat these patents as active enforcement risk.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.