Knott v. Completion Equipment Rental: Three-Patent Infringement Action Dismissed With Prejudice
Inventor Christopher M. Knott sued Completion Equipment Rental, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting three patents covering a Remote Grease Purging System used in oilfield completion equipment. The parties jointly moved to dismiss with prejudice after 666 days, with each side bearing its own costs — a resolution pattern consistent with a private settlement.
Oilfield equipment inventor settles three-patent E.D. Texas infringement case
On August 15, 2022, inventor Christopher M. Knott filed suit against Completion Equipment Rental, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:22-cv-00313), asserting infringement of three patents — US10358891B2, US10517888B2, and US10513906B2 — all directed to Remote Grease Purging System technology used in oilfield completion operations. Knott was represented by Anderson & Cunningham PC, while the defendant engaged Gunn, Lee & Cave PC.
The case closed on June 11, 2024, when the court granted the parties’ joint motion to dismiss all claims with prejudice. Dismissal with prejudice is a final disposition: Knott cannot re-assert the same infringement claims against Completion Equipment Rental on these three patents in future litigation. The court declined to award costs, expenses, or attorneys’ fees to either side, leaving each party responsible for its own litigation spend.
The 666-day duration and the parties’ own-costs agreement are consistent with a negotiated resolution reached before trial — potentially a license, covenant not to sue, or commercial settlement — though the specific terms remain confidential and are not disclosed in the public record. The joint nature of the dismissal motion and the absence of any fee-shifting award suggest neither party achieved a clear-cut litigation victory on the merits.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 666 days
666 days — above the median for E.D. Texas patent cases resolved without trial
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint motion means for both parties
Dismissal with prejudice extinguishes all asserted claims permanently
A dismissal with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 is a final adjudication on the merits for claim-preclusion purposes. Knott cannot re-file these infringement claims against Completion Equipment Rental on US10358891B2, US10517888B2, or US10513906B2. The joint nature of the motion indicates both parties consented — most commonly following a private settlement agreement whose terms are not part of the public record.
Permanent bar on re-filingKnott retains patents but surrenders right to re-litigate this defendant
The patents themselves remain in force — dismissal with prejudice ends only this specific action against this specific defendant. Knott retains the ability to assert the same patents against other parties who may infringe. If a private settlement was reached, Knott likely received compensation or a license arrangement, though no terms are publicly disclosed. The own-costs order means Knott absorbs his own legal fees regardless of outcome.
Patents survive; this dispute closedCompletion Equipment Rental achieves certainty — no future suit on these claims
With prejudice dismissal provides Completion Equipment Rental with strong preclusion protection against Knott re-asserting these three patents in another infringement action. If a license or covenant not to sue was agreed, the company gains freedom to operate under the asserted claims. The own-costs ruling means the defendant also bears its own attorneys’ fees, suggesting no clear prevailing party was designated.
Preclusion protection securedPrivate resolution leaves market uncertainty for other oilfield equipment operators
Because the case resolved without a merits ruling, the validity and scope of Knott’s Remote Grease Purging System patents remain untested in court. Other oilfield equipment rental companies and completion service operators who use similar technology cannot rely on any invalidity or non-infringement finding from this case. The three asserted patents remain live enforcement tools against third parties, suggesting ongoing FTO risk in this product category.
Patents remain untested and enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Christopher M. Knott | Individual | Inventor and patent holder — holder of US10358891B2, US10517888B2, US10513906B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Completion Equipment Rental, Inc. | Company | Oilfield completion equipment rental company accused of infringing remote grease purging patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | David Kent Anderson | Attorney | Counsel for Christopher M. KnottSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Anderson & Cunningham PC | Law Firm | Representing Christopher M. KnottSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Brandon T. Cook | Attorney | Counsel for Completion Equipment Rental, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Gunn, Lee & Cave PC | Law Firm | Representing Completion Equipment Rental, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order adopts the parties’ joint characterisation that the case ‘has been resolved,’ granting dismissal with prejudice on consent. Notably, the order denies all pending relief as moot and imposes no costs on either side — indicating the court made no substantive finding on infringement, validity, or damages. The with-prejudice designation is the legally operative element: it forecloses any future action by Knott against this defendant on these claims, functioning as a final judgment for claim-preclusion purposes under Ninth Circuit and Federal Circuit precedent.
US10358891B2, US10517888B2 & US10513906B2 — Remote Grease Purging System
The three asserted patents — US10358891B2 (App. No. US15/784655), US10517888B2 (App. No. US15/534410), and US10513906B2 (App. No. US16/511335) — cover a Remote Grease Purging System, a technology directed at automating or remotely controlling the lubrication and grease-management functions in oilfield completion equipment. Such systems address operational efficiency and safety in high-pressure wellhead environments where manual grease management poses personnel risk.
For the oilfield services sector, remote grease purging capabilities are commercially relevant to completion equipment rental and service companies operating in unconventional oil and gas plays. The three-patent cluster, filed across multiple application numbers, suggests Knott sought broad claim coverage across system configurations and methods of use. The absence of any invalidity ruling in this case means the patents carry their full presumption of validity — making them a credible enforcement risk for any competitor developing or commercialising similar remote lubrication technology.
Should you run an FTO against US10358891B2 and the Knott patent family?
Any company designing, manufacturing, renting, or servicing completion equipment that incorporates remote grease purging functionality should treat this three-patent family as a live FTO concern. The patents were actively asserted in E.D. Texas — a plaintiff-friendly forum — and resolved without any validity or non-infringement finding that could be relied upon as a defence. R&D teams developing automated lubrication or grease management systems for wellhead applications face the highest exposure.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of US10358891B2, US10517888B2, and US10513906B2 against your product specifications, identify prior art that could support an invalidity challenge, and surface any continuation or divisional applications in the Knott family that may carry forward similar claims. Running this analysis before product launch or market entry in the completion equipment rental space is advisable given the unresolved enforcement posture of this portfolio.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10358891B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar oilfield equipment patent infringement cases in E.D. Texas
Cases involving oilfield completion equipment and remote system patents filed in the Eastern District of Texas, showing comparable enforcement patterns and resolution timelines.
What this case signals for the oilfield completion equipment IP landscape
Three untested patents covering remote grease purging remain live enforcement tools — other operators in this space face unresolved FTO exposure.
Dismissal with prejudice signals likely private settlement, not litigation defeat
Joint motions to dismiss with each party bearing its own costs are the hallmark of a negotiated resolution. No validity or infringement ruling emerged, meaning the legal strength of Knott’s three Remote Grease Purging System patents is unchanged. Competitors and customers of Completion Equipment Rental cannot rely on this outcome as precedent.
All three patents remain enforceable against third parties after this dismissal
US10358891B2, US10517888B2, and US10513906B2 are unimpaired by this dismissal. Oilfield completion equipment companies using remote grease purging technology — whether in rental, service, or manufacturing — should assess their exposure to these patents before assuming the dispute’s closure provides any protection.
Knott v Completion — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice on June 11, 2024, pursuant to a joint motion filed by both parties. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. No merits ruling on infringement or patent validity was issued. The dismissal bars Knott from re-asserting the same claims against Completion Equipment Rental in future litigation.
Knott asserted three U.S. patents: US10358891B2 (App. No. US15/784655), US10517888B2 (App. No. US15/534410), and US10513906B2 (App. No. US16/511335). All three patents relate to Remote Grease Purging System technology used in oilfield completion equipment contexts.
No. A dismissal with prejudice based on a joint motion does not constitute a ruling on patent validity or infringement. The three asserted patents — US10358891B2, US10517888B2, and US10513906B2 — retain their full statutory presumption of validity and remain enforceable against other parties. Only the specific claims between Knott and Completion Equipment Rental are extinguished.
The court’s order that each party bears its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees means no fee-shifting award was made. Under 35 U.S.C. § 285, courts may award attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party in exceptional patent cases. The absence of such an award here — combined with the joint dismissal — is consistent with a negotiated resolution rather than a finding that either party’s position was meritless or exceptional.
Yes. The dismissal with prejudice applies only to the claims between Knott and Completion Equipment Rental in Case No. 2:22-cv-00313. Knott retains the right to assert US10358891B2, US10517888B2, and US10513906B2 against any other party who may infringe those patents. Companies operating in the oilfield completion equipment and remote grease management space should conduct FTO analysis against this patent family.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.