SitePro v. TankLogix: Oilfield SCADA Patent Suit Stayed for PTAB IPR
SitePro, Inc. filed suit against TankLogix, LLC in the Western District of Texas asserting four patents covering hosted SCADA, remote monitoring, and oilfield automation systems. After 251 days, the court granted a motion to stay and administratively closed the case pending resolution of parallel IPR proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Four-Patent SCADA Dispute Paused While PTAB Reviews Validity
SitePro, Inc., a provider of hosted SCADA and oilfield automation services, filed this infringement action against TankLogix, LLC on December 20, 2024, in the Western District of Texas before Judge Xavier Rodriguez. SitePro asserted four U.S. patents — US11294403B2, US10488871B2, US9342078B2, and US12019461B2 — covering core capabilities in remote monitoring, oilfield automation, and hosted industrial control systems. The accused products include TankLogix’s Ignition-Hosted Automation System and associated services such as Comprehensive Hosted SCADA and Site Safety Systems.
The case reached administrative closure on August 28, 2025, when Judge Rodriguez granted a motion to stay pending resolution of IPR proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The court’s order administratively closed the case — a procedural mechanism that, per Fifth Circuit precedent (Mire v. Full Spectrum Lending), carries the same legal effect as a stay but removes the case from the court’s active docket count. The parties are directed to file status advisories every 180 days and within 14 days of any PTAB ruling.
At 251 days, the case moved from filing to stay without any substantive merits rulings, which is consistent with district courts deferring to PTAB when parallel validity proceedings are pending. The IPR petitions challenging one or more of SitePro’s four asserted patents appear to have created sufficient doubt about patent validity to justify the stay. The public record does not disclose which party filed the IPR petitions, the specific claims under review, or the likely PTAB timeline — all factors that will shape whether this dispute resumes in district court or resolves at the PTAB level.
Filing to Case Stayed in 251 days
251 days from filing to administrative closure — resolved at stay stage before substantive merits proceedings
Case stayed for PTAB IPR: what the administrative closure means
Administrative closure is a stay — not a dismissal
Under Fifth Circuit precedent (Mire v. Full Spectrum Lending, 389 F.3d 163), an administrative closure carries identical legal effect to a stay — the case is merely removed from the active docket count. All claims remain live. The court retains jurisdiction and can reopen the case within 14 days of any PTAB ruling, or on the parties’ advisory filings every 180 days. No substantive rights are extinguished.
Pending PTAB outcomeSitePro’s infringement claims are preserved but paused
SitePro retains all four asserted patents and its infringement claims. However, a stay at this stage typically signals that one or more IPR petitions were deemed sufficiently meritorious to warrant deference. If PTAB cancels claims, SitePro’s litigation leverage diminishes materially. If IPR is denied or claims survive, SitePro can return to district court with patent validity bolstered by PTAB’s review.
Claims preserved pending IPRTankLogix shifts the battleground to PTAB
Securing a stay is a significant procedural win for TankLogix. Litigating validity at the PTAB is generally less costly than district court, and a successful IPR can extinguish asserted claims entirely — mooting the infringement action. TankLogix must continue filing 180-day status advisories and a prompt advisory within 14 days of any PTAB decision, keeping it engaged through the administrative closure period.
IPR strategy deployedSCADA patent disputes increasingly resolved at PTAB first
This case is consistent with a broader pattern in industrial IoT and oilfield automation litigation: defendants with credible validity arguments seek IPR stays before significant district court expenditure. For competitors in hosted SCADA, remote monitoring, and oilfield automation, the outcome signals that SitePro’s patent portfolio faces active validity scrutiny — creating both risk and potential opportunity depending on IPR outcomes.
PTAB-first enforcement trendFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | SitePro, Inc. | Company | Oilfield automation and hosted SCADA provider — holder of US11294403B2 and three further patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | TankLogix, LLC | Company | TankLogix, LLC — provider of Ignition-Hosted Automation and oilfield remote monitoring systemsSearch 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 | Robert D. Katz | Attorney | Counsel for TankLogix, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Katz P LLC | Law Firm | Representing TankLogix, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s text order granting the stay is procedural rather than substantive — it makes no findings on infringement, validity, or claim construction. The explicit citation to Mire v. Full Spectrum Lending signals the court’s intent to preserve all parties’ rights while deferring to PTAB’s specialized validity expertise. The 180-day advisory requirement and the 14-day post-ruling advisory obligation suggest the court anticipates a multi-year PTAB process and is actively managing its docket rather than abandoning jurisdiction.
US11294403B2 — Hosted SCADA and oilfield remote monitoring systems
The four asserted patents — US11294403B2, US10488871B2, US9342078B2, and US12019461B2 — collectively span SitePro’s core intellectual property in hosted SCADA architectures, remote monitoring, and oilfield automation. Application dates range from 2014 (US9342078B2, App. 14/147190) through 2023 (US12019461B2, App. 18/212131), indicating a multi-generational prosecution strategy building continuations and improvements on earlier foundational filings. The technology domain covers cloud-hosted supervisory control systems, remote site instrumentation, and automated safety monitoring for upstream oil and gas operations.
SitePro’s portfolio strategy — spanning nearly a decade of prosecution — is consistent with companies seeking to lock up core infrastructure workflows in the upstream oilfield automation market. The Ignition platform, referenced in the accused TankLogix products, is widely used in industrial SCADA deployments, making SitePro’s claims potentially relevant to a broad set of competitors offering hosted or cloud-connected variants. The pending IPR proceedings will be a critical test of whether these patents can withstand prior art scrutiny in a sector where open-source and commercial SCADA tools have been available for decades.
Should you run an FTO against SitePro’s four oilfield SCADA patents?
Any company deploying hosted SCADA, Ignition-based automation, remote oilfield monitoring, or cloud-connected site safety systems should treat SitePro’s four-patent portfolio as an active FTO concern — particularly while PTAB proceedings are ongoing. The stay does not extinguish infringement risk; it merely defers litigation. Product and R&D teams building on Ignition, developing hosted HMI/SCADA platforms, or integrating remote monitoring into upstream oil and gas workflows are within the apparent scope of SitePro’s enforcement interest.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product’s technical features against the independent claims of US11294403B2, US10488871B2, US9342078B2, and US12019461B2 simultaneously — flagging overlap and identifying design-around opportunities before PTAB outcomes reshape the landscape. Eureka can also track PTAB institution decisions and claim amendments in real time, so your FTO analysis stays current as the IPR proceedings evolve.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11294403B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar SCADA and Oilfield Automation Patent Cases in U.S. District Courts
Explore related patent infringement actions involving hosted SCADA, oilfield automation, and remote monitoring technologies litigated in U.S. federal district courts.
What this case signals for the oilfield automation IP landscape
A four-patent SCADA enforcement action staying for PTAB review carries material implications for anyone operating in hosted oilfield automation and remote monitoring.
PTAB stay grants suggest credible invalidity arguments exist
Courts typically grant stays pending IPR when there is a reasonable likelihood that at least one petition will succeed. The fact that Judge Rodriguez stayed all four SitePro patents suggests TankLogix’s IPR petitions presented strong prior art or claim construction arguments. Competitors and licensees should monitor PTAB dockets for institution decisions closely.
SitePro’s portfolio remains a live enforcement risk post-IPR
Even if some claims are cancelled at PTAB, surviving claims on US11294403B2, US10488871B2, US9342078B2, and US12019461B2 retain full enforceability. Companies deploying Ignition-based SCADA platforms or hosted oilfield automation should conduct FTO analysis against all four patents before PTAB outcomes are known — not after.
SitePro v TankLogix — key questions answered
Administrative closure under Fifth Circuit precedent (Mire v. Full Spectrum Lending) is legally equivalent to a stay — no claims are dismissed and the court retains full jurisdiction. SitePro’s infringement claims against TankLogix remain live and will be adjudicated once PTAB resolves the pending IPR proceedings on the four asserted patents.
SitePro asserted four patents: US11294403B2, US10488871B2, US9342078B2, and US12019461B2. These cover hosted SCADA, oilfield automation, remote monitoring, and site safety system technologies. The accused products include TankLogix’s Ignition-Hosted Automation System and related oilfield automation services.
Courts in the W.D. Tex. routinely stay district court proceedings when PTAB IPR petitions are pending, particularly where institution is likely and the same claims are at issue. A stay avoids duplicative litigation, conserves judicial resources, and prevents inconsistent validity rulings. The grant of the stay here suggests TankLogix’s IPR petitions presented credible validity challenges to one or more of the four asserted patents.
Within 14 days of any PTAB ruling, the parties must file an advisory informing the court of what remains to be litigated. If all asserted claims are cancelled, the infringement action may be mooted. If claims survive, the case is expected to reopen for merits proceedings including claim construction, discovery, and potentially trial. The parties must also file status advisories every 180 days during the pendency of IPR proceedings.
The accused products include TankLogix’s Ignition-Hosted Automation System and associated services: Comprehensive Hosted SCADA, Oilfield Automation, Instrumentation & Electrical, Hosted Ignition, Remote Monitoring, Motors and VFDs, and Site Safety Systems — as well as services provided to TankLogix’s clients through these platforms.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.