Global Tubing, LLC v. Tenaris Coiled Tubes, LLC et al.

4:17-cv-03299 S.D. Tex. Closed US9803256B2
Get a prior-art report

Infringement action filed 30 Oct 2017 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas and closed 6 Apr 2023, with US9803256B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: mixed judgment.

Case recordPatsnap Litigation Data·

Case record

Patent involved
US9803256B2
Application no.
US14/190886
Case no.
4:17-cv-03299
Verdict cause
Infringement action
Court
S.D. Tex.
Court level
District Court
Case region
Texas
Chief judge
None recorded
Trial level
First instance
Filed – Closed
30 Oct 2017 – 6 Apr 2023
Duration
1984 days
Basis of termination
Mixed Judgment
Products & marks
High performance material for coiled tubing applications and the method of producing the same
Validity challenges
None recorded
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 4:17-cv-03299, United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Open this record in Eureka
Patsnap Eureka

Check this patent against your own product

Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.

Get an FTO claim chart
10,000 free credits to start
Patent at issue
US9803256B2 Active App. US14/190886

High performance material for coiled tubing applications and the method of producing the same

Embodiments of the present disclosure are directed to coiled steel tubes and methods of manufacturing coiled steel tubes. In some embodiments, the final microstructures of the coiled steel tubes across all base metal regions, weld joints, and heat affected zones can be homogeneous. Further, the final microstructure of the coiled steel tube can be a mixture of tempered martensite and bainite.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Active
Granted
31 Oct 2017
Earliest priority
14 Mar 2013
Est. expiry
26 Feb 2034
Validity challenges
None recorded
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
C21D8/10C21D9/08C21D9/14C21D9/50C21D1/22B21C37/08
Prosecution counsel
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
Examiner
KATZ, VERA
US9803256B2 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
US9803256B2 patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2
Source: Patsnap patent data + case record. Bibliographic fields and drawings reproduced from the published patent document. Break down the claims
Parties & counsel

Parties of record

Plaintiff

Global Tubing, LLC

Core tech
Not recorded
Counsel
Christopher Ryan Johnson · David Joshua Gutierrez · Emma Westbrook Perry · Eugene Alexis Sokoloff · James E. Zucker · Jeffrey A. Andrews · Jeffrey A. Lamken · Katherine Starks Dannenmaier · Matthew Charles Zorn · Pamela L. Hohensee · R. Paul Yetter · Robert J McAughan
Firm
McAugan Deaver PLLC, Mololamken LLP, Yetter Coleman LLP
Defendant

Tenaris Coiled Tubes, LLC

Core tech
C21D8/10C21D9/08C21D9/14C21D9/50
Counsel
Aaron D Resetarits · Alanna Rose Horan · Alma Shields · Anna Rotman · Bailey K. Benedict · Caitlin Dean · Daniel Patrick Gross · Danielle Joy Healey · Drew Morrill · Erin Cady · Gregg F. LoCascio · Jayme Partridge · Jillian Marie Marullo · Karrie Elizabeth Wheatley · Kylie Feger · Leslie M. Schmidt · Matthew Scott Owen · Megan McGlynn · Nathan S Mammen · Neil A Joseph
Firm
Fish & Richardson LLP (DJ Healey), Kirkland & Ellis LLP (Leslie Schmidt), Liskow Lewis
Also named
Tenaris, SA

Counsel of record

AttorneyForRole
Christopher Ryan JohnsonGlobal Tubing, LLCPlaintiff
David Joshua GutierrezGlobal Tubing, LLCPlaintiff
Emma Westbrook PerryGlobal Tubing, LLCPlaintiff
Eugene Alexis SokoloffGlobal Tubing, LLCPlaintiff
James E. ZuckerGlobal Tubing, LLCPlaintiff
Jeffrey A. AndrewsGlobal Tubing, LLCPlaintiff
Jeffrey A. LamkenGlobal Tubing, LLCPlaintiff
Katherine Starks DannenmaierGlobal Tubing, LLCPlaintiff
Matthew Charles ZornGlobal Tubing, LLCPlaintiff
Pamela L. HohenseeGlobal Tubing, LLCPlaintiff
R. Paul YetterGlobal Tubing, LLCPlaintiff
Robert J McAughanGlobal Tubing, LLCPlaintiff
Aaron D ResetaritsTenaris Coiled Tubes, LLCDefendant
Alanna Rose HoranTenaris Coiled Tubes, LLCDefendant
Alma ShieldsTenaris Coiled Tubes, LLCDefendant
Anna RotmanTenaris Coiled Tubes, LLCDefendant
Bailey K. BenedictTenaris Coiled Tubes, LLCDefendant
Caitlin DeanTenaris Coiled Tubes, LLCDefendant
Daniel Patrick GrossTenaris Coiled Tubes, LLCDefendant
Danielle Joy HealeyTenaris Coiled Tubes, LLCDefendant
Drew MorrillTenaris Coiled Tubes, LLCDefendant
Erin CadyTenaris Coiled Tubes, LLCDefendant
Gregg F. LoCascioTenaris Coiled Tubes, LLCDefendant
Jayme PartridgeTenaris Coiled Tubes, LLCDefendant
Jillian Marie MarulloTenaris Coiled Tubes, LLCDefendant
Karrie Elizabeth WheatleyTenaris Coiled Tubes, LLCDefendant
Kylie FegerTenaris Coiled Tubes, LLCDefendant
Leslie M. SchmidtTenaris Coiled Tubes, LLCDefendant
Matthew Scott OwenTenaris Coiled Tubes, LLCDefendant
Megan McGlynnTenaris Coiled Tubes, LLCDefendant
Nathan S MammenTenaris Coiled Tubes, LLCDefendant
Neil A JosephTenaris Coiled Tubes, LLCDefendant
Source: case record + Patsnap company data. Attorney names appear as recorded in the docket. Compare both portfolios
Outcome

Basis of termination

From the record · verbatim

"On October 30, 2017, plaintiff Global Tubing LLC (“Global”) sued defendants Tenaris Coiled Tubes, LLC and Tenaris, S.A.(“Tenaris”) for, among other things, declaratory relief. Since then, the parties have added certain claims and counterclaims. Global currently asserts claims for declaratory judgments of non-infringement, inequitable conduct, invalidity, and unclean hands as to U.S. Patent No. 9,803,256 (“’256 Patent”), U.S. Patent No. 10,378,074 (“’074 Patent”), U.S. Patent No. 10,378,075 (“’075 Patent”), as well as a claim for attempted monopolization under the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §2. ECF 80. Tenaris currently asserts counterclaims against Global for infringement of the ’074 Patent, and ’075 Patent. ECF 119. On August 5, 2022, the Court dismissed the Tenaris counterclaim of infringement of the ’256 Patent with prejudice. 8/5/2022 Minute Entry. In addition, the Court dismissed Global’s declaratory judgment claim 1 of inequitable conduct, claim 3 of inequitable conduct, claim 7 of non-infringement, and claim 9 of invalidity, all as to the ’256 Patent, all without prejudice. Id. On October 7, 2022, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of Tenaris as to Global’s Sherman Act claim. 10/7/2022 Minute Entry. United States District Court Southern District of Texas ENTERED April 06, 2023 Nathan Ochsner, Clerk Case 4:17-cv-03299 Document 571 Filed on 04/06/23 in TXSD Page 1 of 3 - 2 - On March 17, 2023, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of Global based on the unenforceability of the ’256, ’074 Patent, and ’075 Patent. ECF 567. In addition, the Court dismissed all other pending motions of the parties without prejudice. All pending issues before the Court have been resolved or are now moot. Therefore, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58, the Court Orders and enters Final Judgment as follows:  Judgment is entered that the ’256 Patent, ’074 Patent, and ’075 Patent are unenforceable due to inequitable conduct for the reasons stated in the Court’s Order dated March 17, 2023, ECF 567;  Judgment is entered for Tenaris and against Global on Global’s claim for attempted monopolization under the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §2, as to which Global shall take nothing; and  Judgment is entered for Global and against Tenaris on Tenaris’s counterclaims for infringement of the ’256 Patent,’074 Patent, and’075 Patent, as to which Tenaris shall take nothing. Considering these judgments, all other pending claims and requests for relief of the parties are moot and dismissed without prejudice. Nothing in this Judgment limits or impacts the rights of the parties, if any, to seek an award of attorney fees and costs in this matter. Issues of cost and fees will be determined after any appeals are concluded. All other relief not provided above is Denied. This is a Final Judgment."

Case 4:17-cv-03299 · S.D. Tex. · closed 6 April 2023
Source: case record, verbatim. The quoted paragraph is the basis-of-termination text as filed.

Related cases

Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.

FAQ

Frequently asked questions

What is case 4:17-cv-03299?

4:17-cv-03299 is a patent infringement action brought by Global Tubing, LLC against Tenaris Coiled Tubes, LLC, filed on 30 Oct 2017 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The case closed on 6 April 2023.

Which patent was asserted in 4:17-cv-03299?

US9803256B2 (“High performance material for coiled tubing applications and the method of producing the same”), assigned to TENARIS COILED TUBES, LLC, currently active. The record also lists High performance material for coiled tubing applications and the method of producing the same.

How was case 4:17-cv-03299 terminated?

The recorded basis of termination is mixed judgment. The termination text reads: "On October 30, 2017, plaintiff Global Tubing LLC (“Global”) sued defendants Tenaris Coiled Tubes, LLC and Tenaris, S.A.(“Tenaris”) for, among other things, declaratory relief. Since then, the parties have added certain claims and counterclaims. Global currently asserts claims for declaratory judgments of non-infringement, inequitable conduct, invalidity, and unclean hands as to U.S. Patent No. 9,803,256 (“’256 Patent”), U.S. Patent No. 10,378,074 (“’074 Patent”), U.S. Patent No. 10,378,075 (“’075 Patent”), as well as a claim for attempted monopolization under the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §2. EC

What does dismissal with prejudice mean?

A dismissal with prejudice permanently ends the claims that were filed, so the same claims cannot be brought again against that defendant. It is the usual form when the parties have settled.

How long did case 4:17-cv-03299 take?

1984 calendar days, from filing on 30 Oct 2017 to closure on 6 April 2023.

Who were the attorneys and the judge in 4:17-cv-03299?

Christopher Ryan Johnson, David Joshua Gutierrez, Emma Westbrook Perry, Eugene Alexis Sokoloff, James E. Zucker, Jeffrey A. Andrews, Jeffrey A. Lamken, Katherine Starks Dannenmaier, Matthew Charles Zorn, Pamela L. Hohensee, R. Paul Yetter and Robert J McAughan are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Global Tubing. Aaron D Resetarits, Alanna Rose Horan, Alma Shields, Anna Rotman, Bailey K. Benedict, Caitlin Dean, Daniel Patrick Gross, Danielle Joy Healey, Drew Morrill, Erin Cady, Gregg F. LoCascio, Jayme Partridge, Jillian Marie Marullo, Karrie Elizabeth Wheatley, Kylie Feger, Leslie M. Schmidt, Matthew Scott Owen, Megan McGlynn, Nathan S Mammen and Neil A Joseph appear for defendant Tenaris Coiled Tubes.

Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 4:17-cv-03299 and do not constitute legal advice. Ask your own question

Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 4:17-cv-03299 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.

Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.

No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.

No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.