SitePro v. Plow Technologies: Fluid Control Patent Case Transferred to Lead Docket
SitePro, Inc. filed suit against Plow Technologies LLC in the Western District of Texas alleging infringement of three patents covering fluid-handling control devices and the OnPing system. Within 99 days, the case was consolidated with a related action and transferred to Judge Ernest Gonzalez’s docket as the companion case.
Three fluid-control patents drive consolidation in West Texas
SitePro, Inc. filed this patent infringement action on 24 December 2024 in the Western District of Texas, asserting three patents — US11294403B2, US10488871B2, and US9342078B2 — against Plow Technologies LLC. The asserted patents relate to control systems for fluid-handling devices, and the accused product is the OnPing system. The case was assigned to Judge Ernest Gonzalez.
The action was terminated on 2 April 2025 not by settlement or merits adjudication but by a formal transfer order. The court found that this case was related to a simultaneously pending action, SitePro, Inc. v. Plow Technologies LLC et al., Case No. 6:24-cv-00645-EG-DTG, already on Judge Gonzalez’s docket. That companion case was designated the lead case, and with Judge Gonzalez’s consent this matter was consolidated and reassigned to his docket accordingly.
The 99-day duration to transfer is consistent with routine consolidation administration rather than adversarial motion practice. Because the transfer preceded any substantive rulings on infringement, validity, or claim construction, the full merits dispute remains live under the lead case number. Publicly available records for this docket do not disclose what specific product features are alleged to infringe each asserted claim, information that will likely emerge through lead-case proceedings.
Filing to Case Transferred in 99 days
99 days — resolved by transfer before substantive merits proceedings
Case transfer and consolidation: what it means for both parties
Consolidation transfers a case — not ends it
A transfer order under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 42 consolidation practice moves related cases onto a single docket to avoid duplicative proceedings and inconsistent rulings. This case was not dismissed on the merits. All claims, defences, and counterclaims survive and will be litigated under lead case 6:24-cv-00645-EG-DTG before Judge Gonzalez. The public docket for this case number closes, but the dispute continues.
No merits ruling issuedSitePro retains all infringement claims in consolidated proceeding
For SitePro, the transfer is procedurally neutral. Its three-patent infringement case against Plow Technologies remains fully intact in the lead docket. Consolidation may in fact benefit the plaintiff by permitting coordinated discovery and a single claim construction hearing across all asserted patents, reducing the risk of inconsistent rulings.
Claims survive intactPlow Technologies faces consolidated patent exposure
Plow Technologies now defends against SitePro’s patent assertions in a single consolidated proceeding. While consolidation streamlines the docket, it also concentrates the IP exposure in one action. The defendant retained six attorneys across three law firms, suggesting it is preparing a substantive defence on validity and non-infringement grounds that will play out in the lead case.
Consolidated exposure aheadConsolidation signals broader fluid-control IP enforcement strategy
The existence of at least two parallel SitePro actions against Plow Technologies covering fluid-handling control systems and the OnPing product suggests a coordinated enforcement strategy rather than an isolated filing. Companies in the industrial IoT and remote fluid-management sector should monitor the lead case for claim construction rulings, which will define the practical scope of the asserted patents across the market.
Monitor lead case closelyFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | SitePro, Inc. | Company | Industrial IoT and fluid-control automation company — holder of US11294403B2, US10488871B2, US9342078B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Plow Technologies LLC | Company | Plow Technologies LLC — developer and distributor of the OnPing fluid-handling management systemSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Andrew Xavier Kalamarides | Attorney | Counsel for SitePro, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Helena E.D. Burns | Attorney | Counsel for SitePro, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | M. Craig Tyler | Attorney | Counsel for SitePro, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Matthew Lutz | Attorney | Counsel for SitePro, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Perkins Coie LLP | Law Firm | Representing SitePro, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | David M. Sullivan | Attorney | Counsel for Plow Technologies LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Evan G Vincent | Attorney | Counsel for Plow Technologies LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Fred Albert Leibrock | Attorney | Counsel for Plow Technologies LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Henry R. Herren | Attorney | Counsel for Plow Technologies LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | John H. Yoon | Attorney | Counsel for Plow Technologies LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Massimo Ciccarelli | Attorney | Counsel for Plow Technologies LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Ciccarelli Law Firm | Law Firm | Representing Plow Technologies LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Crowe & Dunlevy, P.C. | Law Firm | Representing Plow Technologies LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Phillips Murrah P.C. | Law Firm | Representing Plow Technologies LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Ernest Gonzalez | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The transfer order is purely administrative in character. The court made no finding on infringement, validity, or claim scope — it simply designated the companion docket 6:24-cv-00645-EG-DTG as the lead case and reassigned this matter to Judge Gonzalez with his consent. The order preserves all party rights and pending claims. For practitioners, the operative record going forward is the lead-case docket, where substantive rulings on SitePro’s three fluid-control patents against the OnPing system will be entered.
US11294403B2, US10488871B2 & US9342078B2 — Fluid-Handling Control Systems
The three asserted patents — US11294403B2, US10488871B2, and US9342078B2 — cover control technology for fluid-handling devices, a field central to oil and gas, water treatment, and industrial process automation. Application numbers US17/513539, US15/867077, and US14/147190 span a multi-year filing history, suggesting a continuation or continuation-in-part portfolio strategy designed to extend protection as the underlying technology evolved. The OnPing system is the accused implementation.
A three-patent stack with staggered application dates is a meaningful competitive moat in the industrial IoT space. Later-filed patents in such a chain often claim refined implementations or narrower but commercially critical features, making claim-by-claim design-around increasingly complex. For competitors offering remote fluid monitoring or control automation platforms, the outcome of claim construction in the consolidated W.D. Texas case will determine whether current product architectures fall within the asserted scope.
Should your fluid-control platform be assessed against US11294403B2?
Any company developing or distributing automated fluid-handling control systems, remote monitoring platforms, or industrial IoT devices for oil and gas, water, or process industries should treat this consolidated enforcement action as a prompt to conduct or refresh FTO analysis. SitePro’s multi-patent assertion against Plow Technologies’ OnPing product demonstrates active enforcement intent across the patent family.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent maps each asserted claim element against your product’s technical architecture, identifies relevant prior art, and flags design-around options. With the consolidated W.D. Texas proceedings now active and a Markman hearing likely on the horizon, completing FTO analysis before claim construction is the optimal timing window — decisions made after that will carry significantly higher uncertainty.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11294403B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar fluid-control IoT patent cases in W.D. Texas
Explore related patent infringement actions involving fluid-handling control systems and industrial IoT technology litigated in the Western District of Texas.
What this case signals for the industrial IoT fluid-control IP landscape
Multi-patent, multi-case enforcement in W.D. Texas targeting fluid-handling automation raises the stakes for OnPing-adjacent technology providers.
W.D. Texas consolidation accelerates claim construction timelines
When related cases are consolidated in the Western District of Texas, Judge Gonzalez will manage a single Markman hearing covering all asserted claims. Companies offering competing fluid-handling control platforms should track that proceeding closely — the claim construction order will define the boundaries of SitePro’s IP across the sector.
Three-patent stack signals layered freedom-to-operate risk
SitePro’s simultaneous assertion of US11294403B2, US10488871B2, and US9342078B2 — spanning different application dates — suggests deliberate portfolio architecture designed to cover successive generations of fluid-control automation. Any design-around strategy must account for all three patent families, not just the most recent grant.
SitePro v Plow — key questions answered
Case 6:24-cv-00646 was transferred and consolidated with the related lead case 6:24-cv-00645-EG-DTG before Judge Ernest Gonzalez in the Western District of Texas. No merits ruling was issued. SitePro’s infringement claims covering three fluid-handling control patents remain active under the lead case docket.
SitePro asserted US11294403B2 (application US17/513539), US10488871B2 (application US15/867077), and US9342078B2 (application US14/147190). All three patents relate to control systems for fluid-handling devices. The accused product is Plow Technologies’ OnPing system.
The transfer is a procedural consolidation step, not a merits decision. All claims and defences survive under the lead case number 6:24-cv-00645-EG-DTG. The transfer avoids duplicative proceedings and ensures consistent rulings on claim construction and infringement across both related actions.
Yes. The transfer order does not extinguish SitePro’s infringement allegations against the OnPing system. Those claims continue in the consolidated lead case. Substantive proceedings including discovery, claim construction, and ultimately trial or settlement will occur under the lead docket before Judge Gonzalez.
The consolidated case is before the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, presided over by Judge Ernest Gonzalez. The lead case number is 6:24-cv-00645-EG-DTG. Both the original case 6:24-cv-00646 and the lead case were filed in December 2024.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.