Oil States v. Worldwide Oilfield Machine: Valve Patent Dispute Settled After 674 Days
Oil States Energy Services brought a patent infringement action against Worldwide Oilfield Machine in the Texas Southern District Court over two patents covering pressure differential seating valve technology. The parties reached a settlement after 674 days, with the court entering a conditional dismissal order on 19 December 2024.
Oilfield valve IP dispute ends in settlement after nearly two years
Oil States Energy Services, Inc. filed suit against Worldwide Oilfield Machine, Inc. on 14 February 2023 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, asserting infringement of two patents: US11028929B2 and US10969023B2, both directed to valve technology incorporating pressure differential seating mechanisms. The accused product is described as a ‘valve with pressure differential seating,’ placing the dispute squarely in the oilfield equipment and wellhead control segment.
On 19 December 2024, the court issued an order reflecting notification that all pending claims had been settled. The case was dismissed without prejudice, subject to a 30-day conditional window during which any party could seek reinstatement if the settlement could not be fully documented. Absent such a motion, the dismissal converts to a dismissal with prejudice by operation of the court’s order — a standard conditional settlement mechanism used in the Southern District of Texas.
The case ran for 674 days before resolution, consistent with a dispute that progressed through substantive motion practice — at least six pending motions were denied upon closure. The terms of the settlement remain confidential and are not disclosed in the public record. It is unknown whether a licensing arrangement, design-around agreement, or financial consideration formed the basis of resolution, which is typical for oilfield equipment disputes resolved prior to trial.
Filing to Case Settled in 674 days
674 days — above the median for patent cases in the Texas Southern District
Case settled: what the conditional dismissal order means for both parties
Conditional dismissal: a 30-day bridge to finality
The court’s 19 December 2024 order dismissed the case without prejudice, with automatic conversion to dismissal with prejudice 30 days later unless a party moved for reinstatement. This two-stage mechanism is standard in the Southern District of Texas and gives the parties a short window to finalise settlement documentation before the case closes permanently. The public docket does not indicate any reinstatement motion was filed.
Conditional dismissalOil States secures resolution without trial — terms undisclosed
As the asserting party, Oil States achieved a resolution of its infringement claims without proceeding to trial. Whether the settlement includes a licence, royalty stream, or covenant not to sue is not disclosed in the public record. The conversion to dismissal with prejudice, if unchallenged, forecloses Oil States from re-asserting the same claims against Worldwide Oilfield Machine in a future action on these patents.
Claims resolvedWorldwide Oilfield Machine avoids adverse judgment
Worldwide Oilfield Machine avoids a court finding of infringement and the reputational and financial exposure that accompanies a trial verdict. Settlement prior to judgment leaves no public record of liability. However, the confidential terms likely impose some obligation — whether operational, financial, or licensing-related — the scope of which is unknown from the docket. The dismissal with prejudice removes the immediate litigation risk from these two patents.
No liability findingPressure differential valve IP remains a live enforcement risk
The settlement, rather than a validity or non-infringement ruling, leaves US11028929B2 and US10969023B2 intact and enforceable. Oil States retains the ability to assert these patents against other parties in the oilfield equipment sector. Competitors producing pressure differential seating valve products should treat this settlement as a signal that Oil States is prepared to litigate these assets, and an FTO analysis against both patents is advisable.
Patents remain enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Oil States Energy Services, Inc. | Company | Oilfield equipment manufacturer — holder of US11028929B2 and US10969023B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Worldwide Oilfield Machine, Inc. | Company | Oilfield machinery manufacturer accused of infringing pressure differential valve patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Avery Joseph Welker | Attorney | Counsel for Oil States Energy Services, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | C. Erik Hawes | Attorney | Counsel for Oil States Energy Services, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Elizabeth Mooar Chiaviello | Attorney | Counsel for Oil States Energy Services, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Melissa Marie Story | Attorney | Counsel for Oil States Energy Services, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Nicholas A. Restauri | Attorney | Counsel for Oil States Energy Services, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Paul Richard Morico | Attorney | Counsel for Oil States Energy Services, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Robert Alton Ehrlich | Attorney | Counsel for Oil States Energy Services, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Scott D. Sherwin | Attorney | Counsel for Oil States Energy Services, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Baker Botts LLP | Law Firm | Representing Oil States Energy Services, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Morgan Lewis Bockius LLP | Law Firm | Representing Oil States Energy Services, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Nixon Peabody LLP | Law Firm | Representing Oil States Energy Services, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Aaron E Homer | Attorney | Counsel for Worldwide Oilfield Machine, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Christa Brown-Sanford | Attorney | Counsel for Worldwide Oilfield Machine, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Lindsay Volpenhein Cutie | Attorney | Counsel for Worldwide Oilfield Machine, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Natalie Alfaro Gonzales | Attorney | Counsel for Worldwide Oilfield Machine, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Paul Richard Morico | Attorney | Counsel for Worldwide Oilfield Machine, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Thomas Bence Carter | Attorney | Counsel for Worldwide Oilfield Machine, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Wesley Donald Edwards | Attorney | Counsel for Worldwide Oilfield Machine, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Baker Botts LLP | Law Firm | Representing Worldwide Oilfield Machine, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Homer IP PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Worldwide Oilfield Machine, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Yetter Coleman LLP | Law Firm | Representing Worldwide Oilfield Machine, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Southern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s dismissal order reflects a notification of settlement rather than a merits adjudication. The conditional structure — dismissal without prejudice converting to dismissal with prejudice after 30 days — is a procedural device that protects both parties during final documentation. For the plaintiff, it preserves reinstatement rights briefly; for the defendant, it provides a clear path to finality. The denial of all pending motions without prejudice confirms the court made no substantive rulings on infringement, validity, or claim scope.
US11028929B2 & US10969023B2 — Pressure Differential Seating Valve Technology
US11028929B2 and US10969023B2 are utility patents assigned application numbers US16/663077 and US16/736362 respectively, placing their filing dates in late 2019 and early 2020 — a period of active innovation in wellhead and downhole pressure management technology. Both patents are directed to valve technology incorporating pressure differential seating mechanisms, which are critical components in oilfield flow control, well intervention, and blowout prevention systems where precise seating under differential pressure conditions is operationally essential.
For the oilfield services and equipment sector, patents covering pressure differential valve seating represent commercially significant IP assets. These mechanisms appear in high-value product lines including gate valves, check valves, and choke systems used across upstream production and completions. Oil States Energy Services is a major supplier of wellhead and flow control equipment, and the assertion of both patents together suggests a coordinated enforcement posture around a specific product design that Worldwide Oilfield Machine was alleged to replicate. The settlement preserves these patents as live competitive tools.
Should your team run an FTO against US11028929B2 and US10969023B2?
Any manufacturer, distributor, or operator procuring valves with pressure differential seating functionality for oilfield applications should evaluate freedom-to-operate against both US11028929B2 and US10969023B2. The settlement in this case confirms that Oil States is prepared to enforce these patents through prolonged litigation. R&D and product teams developing competing valve designs — particularly those involving differential pressure actuation or seating mechanisms — face non-trivial infringement exposure if these claim scopes are broad.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can rapidly map the claim landscape of both patents, identify the full continuation family, and surface design-around prior art in the pressure differential valve space. Rather than commissioning a traditional FTO opinion from scratch, product teams can use Eureka to scope the risk in hours, prioritise claims requiring detailed counsel review, and generate a defensible record of due diligence — particularly important given the active enforcement posture signalled by this litigation.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11028929B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar valve patent infringement cases in the Texas Southern District Court
Explore comparable oilfield valve and flow control patent infringement actions filed in the Texas Southern District Court involving pressure-related equipment IP.
What this case signals for the oilfield valve IP landscape
A 674-day infringement dispute resolved before trial keeps key valve patents enforceable and signals active portfolio monetisation by Oil States.
Settlement without judgment keeps both patents fully enforceable
Because the case resolved by settlement rather than a merits ruling, neither US11028929B2 nor US10969023B2 was found invalid or not infringed. Both patents remain active enforcement tools. Any competitor in the pressure differential valve space — particularly those supplying wellhead control or flow control equipment — should monitor Oil States’ assertion activity closely.
Six pending motions at settlement suggests substantive discovery was well advanced
The court denied at least six pending motions upon closure, suggesting the case had progressed through meaningful pre-trial litigation before settlement. This pattern is consistent with cases where one or both parties gained sufficient clarity on claim construction or invalidity risk to make negotiated resolution preferable to continued litigation expense.
Oil v Worldwide — key questions answered
Oil States asserted two patents: US11028929B2 (application US16/663077) and US10969023B2 (application US16/736362), both covering pressure differential seating valve technology used in oilfield flow control applications.
The case settled after 674 days. On 19 December 2024, the Texas Southern District Court entered an order dismissing all claims without prejudice, with automatic conversion to dismissal with prejudice 30 days later absent a reinstatement motion. The financial or licensing terms of the settlement are not disclosed in the public record.
No. Because the case resolved by settlement rather than a court ruling on the merits, US11028929B2 was not found invalid or not infringed. The patent remains fully enforceable and can be asserted against third parties. The dismissal with prejudice only bars Oil States from re-suing Worldwide Oilfield Machine on these specific claims.
The court’s conditional dismissal is a standard mechanism in the Southern District of Texas. It dismisses the case without prejudice initially, giving parties 30 days to finalise settlement documentation. If no reinstatement motion is filed within that window, the dismissal converts automatically to dismissal with prejudice, permanently closing the claims between these parties.
Upon notification of settlement, the court denied all pending motions (ECF Nos. 90, 93, 97, 101, 105, 108) without prejudice to refiling should the case be reinstated. This is standard practice — once a settlement is reported, courts moot all open motions rather than rule on them, preserving judicial resources. The nature of those motions — whether Daubert, summary judgment, or claim construction — is not specified in the public docket entry.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.