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.
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 →Filing to Mixed Judgment in 1984 days
1,984 days — over five years from filing to final judgment in S.D. Texas
US9803256B2 — High-performance coiled tubing material and production methods


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.
Official order — verbatim text
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.
Mixed judgment: what the court's rulings mean for both parties
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 conductGlobal 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 lostTenaris 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 succeededCoiled 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 IPFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Global Tubing, LLC | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Tenaris Coiled Tubes, LLC | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Tenaris, SA | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Christopher Ryan Johnson | Attorney | Counsel for Global Tubing, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | David Joshua Gutierrez | Attorney | Counsel for Global Tubing, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Emma Westbrook Perry | Attorney | Counsel for Global Tubing, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Eugene Alexis Sokoloff | Attorney | Counsel for Global Tubing, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | James E. Zucker | Attorney | Counsel for Global Tubing, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jeffrey A. Andrews | Attorney | Counsel for Global Tubing, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jeffrey A. Lamken | Attorney | Counsel for Global Tubing, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Katherine Starks Dannenmaier | Attorney | Counsel for Global Tubing, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Matthew Charles Zorn | Attorney | Counsel for Global Tubing, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Pamela L. Hohensee | Attorney | Counsel for Global Tubing, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | R. Paul Yetter | Attorney | Counsel for Global Tubing, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Robert J McAughan | Attorney | Counsel for Global Tubing, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | McAugan Deaver PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Global Tubing, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Mololamken LLP | Law Firm | Representing Global Tubing, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Yetter Coleman LLP | Law Firm | Representing Global Tubing, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Aaron D Resetarits | Attorney | Counsel for Tenaris Coiled Tubes, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Alanna Rose Horan | Attorney | Counsel for Tenaris Coiled Tubes, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Alma Shields | Attorney | Counsel for Tenaris Coiled Tubes, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Anna Rotman | Attorney | Counsel for Tenaris Coiled Tubes, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Bailey K. Benedict | Attorney | Counsel for Tenaris Coiled Tubes, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Caitlin Dean | Attorney | Counsel for Tenaris Coiled Tubes, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Daniel Patrick Gross | Attorney | Counsel for Tenaris Coiled Tubes, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Danielle Joy Healey | Attorney | Counsel for Tenaris Coiled Tubes, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Drew Morrill | Attorney | Counsel for Tenaris Coiled Tubes, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Erin Cady | Attorney | Counsel for Tenaris Coiled Tubes, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Gregg F. LoCascio | Attorney | Counsel for Tenaris Coiled Tubes, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jayme Partridge | Attorney | Counsel for Tenaris Coiled Tubes, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jillian Marie Marullo | Attorney | Counsel for Tenaris Coiled Tubes, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Karrie Elizabeth Wheatley | Attorney | Counsel for Tenaris Coiled Tubes, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kylie Feger | Attorney | Counsel for Tenaris Coiled Tubes, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Leslie M. Schmidt | Attorney | Counsel for Tenaris Coiled Tubes, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Matthew Scott Owen | Attorney | Counsel for Tenaris Coiled Tubes, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Megan McGlynn | Attorney | Counsel for Tenaris Coiled Tubes, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Nathan S Mammen | Attorney | Counsel for Tenaris Coiled Tubes, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Neil A Joseph | Attorney | Counsel for Tenaris Coiled Tubes, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fish & Richardson LLP (DJ Healey) | Law Firm | Representing Tenaris Coiled Tubes, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Kirkland & Ellis LLP (Leslie Schmidt) | Law Firm | Representing Tenaris Coiled Tubes, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Liskow Lewis | Law Firm | Representing Tenaris Coiled Tubes, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Southern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
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.
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 pipelineFiling 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 trendsGlobal 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 analysisIP 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 spaceSimilar 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.
Related patent case — similar technology
Comparable case in the same technology domain. Patent holder and defendant reached resolution after proceedings.
SettledRelated infringement action — same court
Comparable High performance material for coiled tubing applications and the method of producing the same-adjacent infringement action. Patent enforcement dynamics analysed in depth.
Active · District CourtRelated invalidity challenge — appellate outcome
Combined invalidity and infringement action in the same technology space. Decided after substantive proceedings.
DecidedGlobal Tubing, LLC's broader IP enforcement history
Global Tubing, LLC's full litigation history covering prior enforcement, licensing activity, and inter partes review proceedings.
Portfolio viewWhat 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.
Tenaris's residual antitrust win may limit Global's commercial damages claim
Despite losing on the patents, Tenaris prevailed on the Sherman Act attempted monopolization defence. This outcome may constrain Global Tubing's ability to recover damages tied to anticompetitive conduct, even as it holds unenforceable patents against Tenaris. The interaction between patent unenforceability and antitrust remedies remains an open strategic question in this record.
Fees and costs remain live — a further litigation phase is possible
The final judgment expressly reserves attorney fees and costs pending any appeal. Given the complexity and duration of this case — nearly five and a half years, multiple summary judgment rulings, and antitrust claims — the fees question could itself be substantial. Companies monitoring this dispute should track post-judgment proceedings in Case No. 4:17-cv-03299.
Global v Tenaris — key questions answered
The Southern District of Texas entered a mixed final judgment on April 6, 2023. The court found U.S. Patent Nos. 9,803,256, 10,378,074, and 10,378,075 all unenforceable due to inequitable conduct, granting summary judgment for Global Tubing. Separately, the court granted summary judgment for Tenaris on Global's Sherman Act attempted monopolization claim. Attorney fees and costs were reserved pending any appeal.
An inequitable conduct finding renders a patent entirely unenforceable — not merely invalid on specific claims. It means Tenaris cannot assert the '256, '074, or '075 patents against Global Tubing or, effectively, anyone else, unless the finding is reversed on appeal. The court entered judgment that Tenaris takes nothing on its infringement counterclaims against Global Tubing. The specific factual basis is detailed in the court's March 17, 2023 order (ECF 567).
No. The court granted summary judgment in favor of Tenaris on Global Tubing's attempted monopolization claim under Sherman Act Section 2 in October 2022. Global Tubing takes nothing on that antitrust claim. The patent unenforceability ruling was the decisive win for Global, not the antitrust theory.
No. The April 6, 2023 final judgment expressly states that issues of costs and fees will be determined after any appeals are concluded. Given the complexity and duration of nearly 1,984 days of litigation, the fees question may be significant. Parties and observers should monitor post-judgment proceedings in Case No. 4:17-cv-03299 in S.D. Texas.
Three patents were at issue: US9803256B2, US10378074, and US10378075. All are directed to high-performance material for coiled tubing applications and methods of producing the same. Coiled tubing is continuous steel pipe used extensively in oil and gas wellbore operations. The patents relate to the material compositions and production processes that enable the tubing to withstand demanding downhole fatigue and pressure conditions.
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.
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.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.