SitePro v. TankLogix: Oilfield SCADA Patents Stayed Pending 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, Judge Xavier Rodriguez stayed and administratively closed the case pending resolution of parallel IPR proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeals Board — a pivotal inflection point that shifts the patent validity battle to the PTAB.
Four SCADA patents, one IPR stay: SitePro vs. TankLogix explained
SitePro, Inc. filed this patent infringement action against TankLogix, LLC on December 20, 2024 in the Western District of Texas (Waco Division), asserting four US patents: US9898014B2, US11726504B2, US8649909B1, and US11175680B2. The patents collectively cover hosted SCADA platforms, remote monitoring systems, and oilfield automation technologies. The accused products include TankLogix’s Ignition-Hosted Automation System, Comprehensive Hosted SCADA, Remote Monitoring, Motors and VFDs, and related Site Safety Systems — a broad swath of TankLogix’s commercial oilfield services portfolio.
On August 28, 2025 — 251 days after filing — Judge Xavier Rodriguez granted TankLogix’s Motion to Stay (Dkt. 28), administratively closing the case pending resolution of IPR proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeals Board. The court cited the Fifth Circuit’s Mire standard, clarifying that administrative closure functions identically to a stay for all legal purposes, merely removing the case from the active docket count. Parties are directed to file status advisories every 180 days and within 14 days of any PTAB ruling, ensuring the court retains supervisory oversight.
The relatively swift grant of a stay — less than nine months after filing — suggests the IPR petitions presented a credible validity challenge that cleared the PTAB’s institution threshold, or that the motion was sufficiently compelling for the court to defer district court resources. The public record does not reveal the specific grounds of the IPR petitions, the claims challenged, or whether institution has already been granted. What remains clear is that the substantive battleground has shifted to the PTAB, and the district court litigation is suspended indefinitely until those administrative proceedings conclude.
Filing to Case Stayed in 251 days
251 days from filing to administrative closure — resolved faster than the median WDTX patent case
IPR stay granted: what administrative closure means for both parties
Administrative closure is a stay — nothing more, nothing less
Under the Fifth Circuit’s Mire standard (389 F.3d 163), administrative closure is legally equivalent to a simple stay. The district court retains jurisdiction; no claims are dismissed; no rights are forfeited. The case is removed from the active docket solely for statistical purposes. Judge Rodriguez’s order preserves all parties’ positions precisely as they stood on August 28, 2025, while ceding patent validity analysis to the PTAB’s inter partes review process.
Stay ≠ dismissalSitePro’s infringement claims are paused, not extinguished
SitePro retains all four asserted patents and its infringement claims survive intact. However, enforcement is suspended until PTAB resolves the IPR proceedings. If the PTAB invalidates claims central to SitePro’s infringement theory, the district court litigation may narrow significantly or collapse entirely. Conversely, if the PTAB confirms patentability, SitePro returns to district court with PTAB-validated claims — typically strengthening its negotiating and litigation posture.
Enforcement suspendedTankLogix bets on PTAB to neutralise the patent threat
TankLogix’s successful motion to stay suggests it has initiated IPR petitions challenging the validity of one or more of SitePro’s four asserted patents. The PTAB forum is generally considered more defendant-friendly than district court on obviousness and prior art grounds. A favourable PTAB outcome could eliminate or narrow the patent claims driving this lawsuit, potentially avoiding costly discovery and trial in Texas. TankLogix continues operating its Ignition-Hosted Automation System during the stay period without an injunction in place.
IPR as defensive shieldOilfield SCADA IP landscape held in suspense pending PTAB ruling
Four patents covering hosted SCADA, remote monitoring, and oilfield automation now face simultaneous PTAB scrutiny. Competitors in the oilfield automation and Ignition-based integration space should monitor PTAB dockets for the SitePro IPR proceedings closely. A PTAB invalidity finding could open design space currently claimed by SitePro; a confirmation of patentability would signal that SitePro’s portfolio poses a credible enforcement risk across the Ignition integrator ecosystem, potentially affecting other registered integrators beyond TankLogix.
Watch PTAB docketsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | SitePro, Inc. | Company | Oilfield automation and SCADA software provider — holder of US9898014B2 and three related patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | TankLogix, LLC | Company | Oilfield automation and instrumentation services company operating Ignition-Hosted Automation 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 | Janice L. Ta | 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
Judge Rodriguez’s text order granting the stay is deliberately narrow in scope: it resolves only the procedural question of forum priority between the district court and the PTAB, making no ruling on infringement, validity, or claim construction. The administrative closure language drawn from Mire v. Full Spectrum Lending confirms that all substantive rights remain preserved. The 180-day advisory and 14-day post-PTAB-ruling obligations indicate the court intends to resume jurisdiction promptly once IPR proceedings conclude, rather than allowing the case to languish indefinitely.
US9898014B2 — Hosted SCADA and oilfield automation platform patents
The four asserted patents — US9898014B2 (App. No. US14/984422), US11726504B2 (App. No. US17/681373), US8649909B1 (App. No. US13/708557), and US11175680B2 (App. No. US16/656319) — collectively cover the technical architecture of hosted SCADA platforms, remote monitoring systems, and automated oilfield site control. The application dates span from the US13 series through the US17 series, suggesting a family of continuations and related filings that evolved over roughly a decade of prosecution, with the most recent patent (US11726504B2) reflecting more recent claim refinements in the automation and remote telemetry space.
For the oilfield automation sector, this patent family’s significance lies in its coverage of hosted — rather than on-premise — SCADA architectures, a design paradigm that has become dominant as operators shift toward cloud-connected field operations. The Ignition platform by Inductive Automation has become a widely adopted SCADA backbone among oilfield integrators; SitePro’s assertion against an Ignition-registered integrator suggests the patents may read broadly enough to implicate hosted deployments of third-party SCADA platforms, not merely SitePro’s own proprietary stack. That framing, if confirmed, would elevate the competitive significance of this portfolio substantially.
Should you run an FTO against US9898014B2 and SitePro’s oilfield SCADA patents?
Any company offering hosted SCADA services, Ignition-based automation integrations, remote monitoring, or oilfield site safety systems should treat SitePro’s four-patent portfolio as a live freedom-to-operate concern — not merely an academic one. The filing of this lawsuit, combined with the scope of accused products (spanning VFDs, remote monitoring, and hosted automation), signals that SitePro is actively mapping its patents against competitor product lines. The PTAB proceedings do not pause FTO risk for non-parties; they may actually narrow the claims in ways that create new clearance pathways or, conversely, focus surviving claims more precisely on commercially sensitive architectures.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables R&D and product teams to rapidly map product features against the claims of US9898014B2, US11726504B2, US8649909B1, and US11175680B2 — identifying which specific claim elements, if any, overlap with your system architecture. Eureka’s PTAB monitoring layer can alert you to institution decisions, final written decisions, and claim cancellations in real time, so your FTO posture stays current as the IPR proceedings evolve. Engage Eureka before the PTAB issues its ruling — not after.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9898014B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar SCADA and oilfield automation patent cases in Texas federal courts
Explore patent infringement cases involving hosted SCADA, remote monitoring, and oilfield automation patents filed in the Western District of Texas and related federal venues.
What this case signals for the oilfield automation IP landscape
A four-patent SCADA enforcement action stayed for IPR has sector-wide implications for Ignition integrators and oilfield automation vendors.
IPR stays in WDTX signal credible validity challenges worth tracking
Courts in the Western District of Texas grant stays pending IPR when the PTAB challenge presents substantial merit. The swift grant here — under nine months from filing — suggests TankLogix’s IPR petitions likely cleared or were close to clearing the institution threshold. Competitors and potential licensees should monitor PTAB dockets for institution decisions on these four patents before making product or licensing decisions.
Ignition-platform integrators face a credible portfolio enforcement risk
SitePro’s four asserted patents broadly cover hosted SCADA and remote monitoring architectures used across the oilfield automation sector. Any company offering Ignition-hosted automation, remote telemetry, or site safety systems in oil and gas should assess freedom-to-operate against US9898014B2, US11726504B2, US8649909B1, and US11175680B2 — regardless of this case’s outcome. The mere filing signals active enforcement intent across the integrator ecosystem.
SitePro v TankLogix — key questions answered
Administrative closure in SitePro v. TankLogix is legally equivalent to a stay under the Fifth Circuit’s Mire standard. Judge Rodriguez’s order removes the case from the active docket count but preserves all parties’ rights and the court’s jurisdiction. No claims are dismissed. The case resumes automatically once the PTAB resolves the pending IPR proceedings, triggered by the parties’ mandatory advisory filing within 14 days of any PTAB ruling.
SitePro asserted four US patents: US9898014B2, US11726504B2, US8649909B1, and US11175680B2. These patents cover hosted SCADA platforms, remote monitoring systems, and oilfield automation architectures. The accused products include TankLogix’s Ignition-Hosted Automation System, Comprehensive Hosted SCADA, Remote Monitoring, Motors and VFDs, and Site Safety Systems.
Judge Xavier Rodriguez granted TankLogix’s Motion to Stay (Dkt. 28) because the case was appropriate for administrative closure pending PTAB IPR proceedings. Courts typically grant such stays when the IPR challenge is credible, when simplification of issues is likely, and when the stage of litigation makes a stay non-prejudicial. The order does not specify which patents or claims are subject to IPR, nor whether PTAB has already instituted review.
SitePro’s infringement claims survive intact during the stay — they are suspended, not dismissed. If the PTAB cancels key claims through IPR, SitePro’s infringement theory may narrow or collapse, potentially mooting parts of the district court action. If the PTAB confirms patentability, SitePro returns to WDTX with PTAB-validated claims, typically strengthening its litigation posture. Parties must file status advisories every 180 days and within 14 days of any PTAB ruling.
The stay directly affects only the parties to Case No. 6:24-cv-00642. However, the IPR proceedings will produce public PTAB decisions on the validity of SitePro’s four patents, which will be instructive for all companies operating in the Ignition-hosted SCADA and oilfield automation space. A PTAB invalidity finding would benefit the broader integrator ecosystem; a patentability confirmation would signal elevated enforcement risk across the sector.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.