Book a demo

Cut patent&paper research from weeks to hours with PatSnap Eureka AI!

Try now
Global Tubing v. Tenaris: Coiled Tubing Patent Unenforceability | PatSnap
Patent Litigation

Global Tubing v. Tenaris: Three Coiled Tubing Patents Found Unenforceable After 1,984 Days

Global Tubing LLC filed suit in October 2017 seeking declaratory relief against Tenaris's coiled tubing patents. After nearly five and a half years of litigation in the Southern District of Texas, the court entered a mixed final judgment on April 6, 2023, finding all three Tenaris patents unenforceable for inequitable conduct — a decisive outcome for Global Tubing.

Resolution time
1984days
1,984 days — over five years from filing to final judgment in S.D. Texas
Patents asserted
1
US9803256B2 and two further patents asserted — high-performance coiled tubing material and methods
Outcome
Mixed Judgment
All three Tenaris patents found unenforceable; Tenaris prevailed on Global's Sherman Act claim
Cost ruling
Fees Pending
Attorney fees and costs reserved pending any appeal; no fee award in this judgment
Published by PatSnap Insights Team · Verified by PatSnap Eureka Data
Case overview

Five-Year Coiled Tubing Patent War Ends in Unenforceability Finding

On October 30, 2017, Global Tubing LLC filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas against Tenaris Coiled Tubes, LLC and Tenaris, S.A., seeking declaratory judgments of non-infringement, invalidity, inequitable conduct, and unclean hands with respect to U.S. Patent Nos. 9,803,256, 10,378,074, and 10,378,075 — all directed to high-performance material for coiled tubing applications. Tenaris responded with counterclaims alleging infringement of the '074 and '075 patents, while the '256 patent infringement counterclaim was separately dismissed with prejudice in August 2022.

The case produced a mixed final judgment entered April 6, 2023. The court granted summary judgment in favor of Global on March 17, 2023, finding all three Tenaris patents unenforceable due to inequitable conduct — meaning Tenaris's infringement counterclaims on the '074 and '075 patents also failed. However, the court separately granted summary judgment in favor of Tenaris on Global's Sherman Act attempted monopolization claim in October 2022, so Global took nothing on that antitrust theory. The recorded basis of termination is Mixed Judgment.

The case ran for nearly 1,984 days — an unusually long district court lifecycle that reflects the breadth and complexity of claims, including antitrust and inequitable conduct alongside infringement. The inequitable conduct finding is a high bar to clear at summary judgment and represents a significant result for Global Tubing. The specific factual basis for the inequitable conduct finding is detailed in the court's March 17, 2023 order (ECF 567), which is not reproduced in the available record here. Attorney fees and costs remain unresolved pending any appeal, leaving further proceedings possible.

See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →
Case at a glance
CourtTexas Southern District Court
JudgeN/A
FiledOctober 30, 2017
ClosedApril 6, 2023
Duration1984 days
OutcomeMixed Judgment
Verdict causeInfringement Action
BasisMixed Judgment
Prior Art Intelligence
See what prior art exists on this patent.
Eureka scans millions of patents and papers to surface prior art that may have invalidated these claims before costly litigation begins.
Check Prior Art
Case data sourced from PACER / Texas Southern District Court via PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore similar cases ↗
Case timeline

Filing to Mixed Judgment in 1984 days

1,984 days — over five years from filing to final judgment in S.D. Texas

Case timeline: Complaint filed OCT 30 2017 — 1984 days total Horizontal timeline showing the three key events in Global Tubing, LLC v Tenaris Coiled Tubes, LLC from filing to resolution. Source: PACER, Texas Southern District Court. OCT 30 2017 Complaint filed Pre-trial proceedings APR 6 2023 Mixed Judgment 1984 DAYS TOTAL
Patent at issue

US9803256B2 — High-performance coiled tubing material and production methods

Publication No.US9803256B2
Application No.US14/190886
Patent details
ProductHigh-performance material for coiled tubing applications and methods of producing the same
Cited in actionOctober 30, 2017
Technical brief · sourced from PatSnap patent database
Patent figurePatent figure
Representative claim (1 of 1 independent)
1. A coiled steel tube having improved yield strength and fatigue life at weld joints of the coiled tube, the coiled steel tube comprising: a plurality of strips welded together end to end by a bias weld and formed into a coiled steel tube, each of the plurality of strips having base metal regions, bias weld joints, and heat affected zones surrounding the bias weld joints, each of the plurality of welded strips comprising: a yield strength greater than about 80 ksi; a composition comprising iron and: 0.17-0.35 wt. % carbon; 0.30-2.00 wt. % manganese; 0.10-0.30 wt. % silicon; 0.010-0.040 wt. % aluminum; up to 0.01…
Technical background
INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE TO ANY PRIORITY APPLICATIONS Any and all applications for which a foreign or domestic priority claim is identified in the Application Data Sheet as filed with the present application are hereby incorporated by reference under 37 CFR 1.57. RELATED APPLICATION This application is related to Applicant's co-pending application entitled COILED TUBE WITH VARYING MECHANICAL PROPERTIES FOR SUPERIOR PERFORMANCE AND METHODS TO PRODUCE THE SAME BY A CONTINUOUS HEAT TREATMENT, Ser. No. 13/229,517, fi…
Patent family
35 family members across 14 jurisdictions (EP, US, AT, MX, BR, RU, CN, DE, DK, PL, AR, NO)
PatSnap Eureka · FTO Search Agent
Should you run an FTO against US9803256B2 and its coiled tubing patent family?

Companies developing, manufacturing, or supplying high-performance coiled tubing products — particularly those competing with Tenaris in the OCTG market — should be aware that US9803256B2, US10378074, and US10378075 have been judicially declared unenforceable. However, unenforceability findings can be appealed, and the fees/costs phase remains open. R&D teams and procurement functions should still map their products against the claim scope of these patents and monitor appellate developments before concluding that FTO risk is fully extinguished.

Run FTO in Eureka
Patent data sourced from USPTO via PatSnap Eureka patent database Search patent records in Eureka ↗
Official verdict

Official order — verbatim text

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.
Source: PACER Docket, Case 4:17-cv-03299, Texas Southern District Court

The April 6, 2023 final judgment resolves all pending claims through a mixed disposition: summary judgment for Global Tubing rendered all three Tenaris patents unenforceable for inequitable conduct, while summary judgment for Tenaris defeated Global's Sherman Act attempted monopolization claim. The judgment expressly reserves attorney fees and costs pending appeal, meaning this final judgment does not fully close the financial exposure for either party. The inequitable conduct ruling is the operative and commercially significant holding.

PACER case 4:17-cv-03299 · Public docket record Explore in Eureka ↗
Judgment terms

Mixed judgment: what the court's rulings mean for both parties

Legal mechanism

Inequitable conduct: patents rendered unenforceable at summary judgment

The court granted summary judgment in Global Tubing's favor on March 17, 2023, holding all three Tenaris patents — the '256, '074, and '075 — unenforceable for inequitable conduct. An inequitable conduct finding extinguishes enforceability of the patent entirely, regardless of whether the claims would otherwise be valid or infringed. This is a high evidentiary bar, typically requiring proof of intent to deceive the USPTO. The final judgment reflects this outcome directly.

Unenforceability — inequitable conduct
Plaintiff outcome

Global Tubing prevails on the patents — but loses on antitrust

Global Tubing secured the core relief it sought: all three Tenaris patents are now unenforceable, and Tenaris's infringement counterclaims on the '074 and '075 patents were defeated. Global is protected from future infringement claims under these patents. However, Global's attempted monopolization claim under Sherman Act Section 2 failed at summary judgment in October 2022, so Global took nothing on its antitrust theory. The net result is a substantial but not complete win for Global.

Patents unenforceable; antitrust claim lost
Defendant outcome

Tenaris loses patent enforceability; wins on antitrust counter

Tenaris's three coiled tubing patents are now judicially declared unenforceable. Its infringement counterclaims against Global Tubing on the '074 and '075 patents were dismissed, and it takes nothing on those claims. The earlier dismissal with prejudice of its '256 patent infringement counterclaim stands. Tenaris's one significant victory was defeating Global's Sherman Act attempted monopolization claim. Attorney fees and costs remain open pending any appeal, preserving some uncertainty for both parties.

Patent rights extinguished; antitrust defense succeeded
Commercial implications

Coiled tubing sector: inequitable conduct precedent raises portfolio risk

An inequitable conduct finding at summary judgment in a competitive industrial sector signals meaningful exposure for patent holders whose prosecution history can be scrutinised. Competitors and suppliers in the coiled tubing and OCTG space should note that patent portfolios built around high-performance tubular materials carry prosecution-integrity risk. This outcome may embolden other parties to challenge similar patents on inequitable conduct grounds rather than pursuing purely validity or infringement-based defences.

Prosecution integrity risk for tubular IP
Legal analysis based on PACER docket records for case 4:17-cv-03299 and PatSnap Eureka litigation intelligence Search PatSnap Eureka ↗
Parties and representation

Full party and counsel information

RoleNameTypeDetail
PlaintiffGlobal Tubing, LLCCompany/Search in Eureka ↗
DefendantTenaris Coiled Tubes, LLCCompany/Search in Eureka ↗
Co-DefendantTenaris, SACompanySearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselChristopher Ryan JohnsonAttorneyCounsel for Global Tubing, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselDavid Joshua GutierrezAttorneyCounsel for Global Tubing, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselEmma Westbrook PerryAttorneyCounsel for Global Tubing, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselEugene Alexis SokoloffAttorneyCounsel for Global Tubing, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselJames E. ZuckerAttorneyCounsel for Global Tubing, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselJeffrey A. AndrewsAttorneyCounsel for Global Tubing, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselJeffrey A. LamkenAttorneyCounsel for Global Tubing, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselKatherine Starks DannenmaierAttorneyCounsel for Global Tubing, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselMatthew Charles ZornAttorneyCounsel for Global Tubing, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselPamela L. HohenseeAttorneyCounsel for Global Tubing, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselR. Paul YetterAttorneyCounsel for Global Tubing, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselRobert J McAughanAttorneyCounsel for Global Tubing, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmMcAugan Deaver PLLCLaw FirmRepresenting Global Tubing, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmMololamken LLPLaw FirmRepresenting Global Tubing, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmYetter Coleman LLPLaw FirmRepresenting Global Tubing, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselAaron D ResetaritsAttorneyCounsel for Tenaris Coiled Tubes, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselAlanna Rose HoranAttorneyCounsel for Tenaris Coiled Tubes, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselAlma ShieldsAttorneyCounsel for Tenaris Coiled Tubes, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselAnna RotmanAttorneyCounsel for Tenaris Coiled Tubes, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselBailey K. BenedictAttorneyCounsel for Tenaris Coiled Tubes, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselCaitlin DeanAttorneyCounsel for Tenaris Coiled Tubes, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselDaniel Patrick GrossAttorneyCounsel for Tenaris Coiled Tubes, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselDanielle Joy HealeyAttorneyCounsel for Tenaris Coiled Tubes, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselDrew MorrillAttorneyCounsel for Tenaris Coiled Tubes, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselErin CadyAttorneyCounsel for Tenaris Coiled Tubes, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselGregg F. LoCascioAttorneyCounsel for Tenaris Coiled Tubes, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselJayme PartridgeAttorneyCounsel for Tenaris Coiled Tubes, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselJillian Marie MarulloAttorneyCounsel for Tenaris Coiled Tubes, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselKarrie Elizabeth WheatleyAttorneyCounsel for Tenaris Coiled Tubes, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselKylie FegerAttorneyCounsel for Tenaris Coiled Tubes, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselLeslie M. SchmidtAttorneyCounsel for Tenaris Coiled Tubes, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselMatthew Scott OwenAttorneyCounsel for Tenaris Coiled Tubes, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselMegan McGlynnAttorneyCounsel for Tenaris Coiled Tubes, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselNathan S MammenAttorneyCounsel for Tenaris Coiled Tubes, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselNeil A JosephAttorneyCounsel for Tenaris Coiled Tubes, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant law firmFish & Richardson LLP (DJ Healey)Law FirmRepresenting Tenaris Coiled Tubes, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant law firmKirkland & Ellis LLP (Leslie Schmidt)Law FirmRepresenting Tenaris Coiled Tubes, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant law firmLiskow LewisLaw FirmRepresenting Tenaris Coiled Tubes, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Presiding judgeJudge N/AJudgeTexas Southern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗
R&D signals

R&D signals in the coiled tubing and high-performance tubular materials space

Patent intelligence derived from the Global Tubing v. Tenaris litigation — forward-looking signals for R&D teams and IP strategists in the oilfield tubular goods sector.

Patent portfolio

Tenaris's coiled tubing patent filings after the '256 family

The judicial unenforceability of US9803256B2, US10378074, and US10378075 removes a key layer of Tenaris's coiled tubing IP protection. Tracking Tenaris's post-2017 filing activity in high-performance tubular alloys and coiled tubing process patents reveals whether the company has been building a successor portfolio to replace this now-neutralised family — a critical signal for Freedom to Operate planning.

Tenaris tubular IP pipeline
Technology landscape

Filing trends in high-performance coiled tubing materials globally

The contested technology — high-grade metallurgical compositions and heat treatment methods for coiled tubing — sits at the intersection of materials science and oilfield engineering. Analysing global filing trends in this space reveals which companies are actively building IP positions around fatigue-resistant, high-yield coiled tubing alloys, and where the next generation of patentable innovations is emerging.

Coiled tubing materials filing trends
Competitor IP posture

Global Tubing's IP position in the coiled tubing sector

As the declaratory judgment plaintiff that successfully defeated Tenaris's patent enforcement, Global Tubing demonstrated strong technical and legal capabilities in the coiled tubing space. Examining Global Tubing's own patent portfolio and R&D filings reveals whether the company has been building proprietary IP around its coiled tubing products — and whether it presents its own assertion risk to competitors in this sector.

Global Tubing portfolio analysis
White space

IP white space in next-gen coiled tubing composites and manufacturing

With three key Tenaris patents on high-performance steel coiled tubing now judicially unenforceable, adjacent innovation areas — including composite coiled tubing materials, advanced cold-work processes, and digital monitoring integration for coiled tubing strings — may represent low-encumbrance R&D opportunities. Mapping claim density in these sub-domains helps identify where freedom to innovate is greatest.

Adjacent coiled tubing white space
Related litigation

Similar patent cases: coiled tubing and OCTG materials in S.D. Texas

Explore comparable declaratory judgment and patent infringement cases in coiled tubing, OCTG, and oilfield tubular materials litigated in the Southern District of Texas.

🔍
Access 40+ similar cases in PatSnap Eureka
Global Tubing, LLC patent enforcement history, Texas Southern District Court case history, Global Tubing, LLC's full IP portfolio, and comparable case analysis
OCTG patent disputes S.D. Tex.Inequitable conduct dismissalsTenaris litigation historyCoiled tubing DJ actions
Unlock similar cases in Eureka →
Strategic implications

What this case signals for the oilfield tubular goods IP landscape

A landmark inequitable conduct ruling in coiled tubing patents reshapes enforcement risk across the OCTG and tubular materials sector.

Inequitable conduct at summary judgment is rare — and devastating for patent holders

Winning an inequitable conduct defence at summary judgment, before trial, is an exceptional outcome. It suggests the evidentiary record on intent to deceive was unusually clear. Patent holders in the coiled tubing and tubular materials space should audit their prosecution histories for similar vulnerabilities before asserting their portfolios.

Declaratory judgment plaintiffs can neutralise patent threats without waiting to be sued

Global Tubing's decision to file first — seeking declaratory relief — gave it control of the litigation venue and strategy in the Southern District of Texas. Companies facing patent assertion threats from competitors in industrial materials sectors should consider the tactical value of pre-emptive DJ actions, particularly where inequitable conduct evidence exists.

🔒
Full strategic analysis in PatSnap Eureka
Unlock deeper strategic analysis for the oilfield tubular goods sector from this S.D. Texas district court mixed judgment.
Fees exposure analysisTenaris portfolio risk mapCoiled tubing FTO signals
Unlock full analysis →
Analysis powered by PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore in Eureka ↗
Frequently asked questions

Global v Tenaris — key questions answered

Still have questions? PatSnap Eureka can answer them instantly from patent and litigation data. Ask Eureka ↗
PatSnap Eureka

Monitor coiled tubing patent risk and Tenaris IP activity in real time

With three Tenaris patents judicially unenforceable, now is the time to map residual portfolio risk and track appeal developments. PatSnap Eureka provides real-time FTO analysis and portfolio monitoring for the oilfield tubular goods sector.

Disclaimer

This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.

Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.

Ask anything about this case.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.
Powered by PatSnap Eureka
Link copied to clipboard

Related Litigation Cases

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.