Swinford v. Coil Tubing Technology: 10-Patent Downhole Tool Dispute Settled
Jason L. Swinford and Jerry Swinford brought a 10-patent infringement action against Coil Tubing Technology, Inc. and Toucan Downhole Solutions, LLC in the Southern District of Texas, asserting rights over a suite of downhole oilfield tools spanning jet hammers, drilling jars, oscillators, and rotation tools. The parties reached a settlement after 1,413 days of litigation, with the court entering a final judgment confirming patent ownership.
Ten Downhole Tool Patents, One Southern District Settlement
On June 26, 2019, Jason L. Swinford and Jerry Swinford filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Case No. 4:19-cv-02301) against Coil Tubing Technology, Inc. and Toucan Downhole Solutions, LLC. The complaint asserted infringement of ten US patents covering a broad range of downhole oilfield tools, including apparatus for cleaning oil wellbores, downhole oscillators, jet hammers, jet motors, drilling jars, rotating tools, and linear/vibrational impact tools.
The recorded Basis of Termination is 'Case Settled.' The docket's final judgment order reflects that the parties filed a Joint Motion for Entry of Final Judgment and announced a settlement. The court entered final judgment confirming that Jason Swinford, Jerry Swinford, and Texas Oilwell Partners, LLC — as they designate among themselves — are the owners of all Patents-in-Suit, denied all relief not specifically granted, and ordered each party to bear its own costs and attorneys' fees. The case was dismissed as to all parties and the clerk was directed to close the file.
The case ran for approximately 1,413 days — nearly four years — before resolution, suggesting the parties engaged in substantial pre-trial proceedings before reaching agreement. The final judgment's express confirmation of patent ownership is a notable feature, providing a court-entered record of title. The specific commercial terms of the settlement, including any licensing, royalty, or non-assertion provisions, are not disclosed in the available record.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Case Settled in 1413 days
1,413 days — nearly 4 years from filing to close, well above median patent case duration
US7686102, US7946348, US8151908 and 7 further downhole tool patents
Any company manufacturing or deploying coiled-tubing tools, downhole oscillators, jet hammers, drilling jars, wellbore cleaning apparatus, or rotational downhole tools in the US market should treat the Swinford/Texas Oilwell Partners portfolio as a live FTO concern. With ten granted patents and a filing history stretching nearly a decade, the family covers both established and emerging product configurations. The Southern District of Texas is an active patent enforcement venue, reinforcing the practical risk of future assertion.
Official order — verbatim text
The final judgment, entered on a Joint Motion following the parties' settlement announcement, is structured as a merits-neutral ownership declaration rather than an infringement determination. The court confirmed patent title in the Swinford parties and Texas Oilwell Partners, LLC, denied all ungranted relief, and ordered each side to bear its own costs. No finding of infringement, validity, or damages was made — the judgment resolves the dispute on agreed terms only.
Settled: what the agreed resolution means for both parties
Court-entered final judgment on settlement terms
Rather than a bare dismissal, the parties sought — and the court entered — a formal final judgment. This provides a court record that goes beyond a stipulated dismissal: the judgment expressly identifies the patent owners of record and disposes of all claims. Each party bears its own costs and attorneys' fees, and all relief not specifically granted is denied. The specific settlement terms beyond the ownership declaration are not disclosed in the available record.
Final judgment on settlementOwnership of all 10 patents confirmed by court order
The court's final judgment expressly names Jason Swinford, Jerry Swinford, and Texas Oilwell Partners, LLC as the owners of all Patents-in-Suit. This court-entered ownership declaration provides a stronger public record of title than a simple voluntary dismissal. The plaintiffs' ability to secure this judgment suggests leverage over the defendants, though the specific commercial terms of the settlement are not disclosed in the available record.
Ownership confirmed by courtCase resolved without adjudication of infringement
Coil Tubing Technology, Inc. and Toucan Downhole Solutions, LLC avoided a merits ruling on infringement across ten asserted patents — a meaningful outcome given the breadth of the patent portfolio. Each party bears its own costs, meaning no fee-shifting was imposed on the defendants. The specific terms agreed — including any licensing arrangements, covenants, or operational restrictions — are not disclosed in the available record.
No infringement rulingBroad patent portfolio remains active enforcement risk for the sector
With ten patents covering core downhole tool technologies — oscillators, jet hammers, drilling jars, wellbore cleaning apparatus, and rotation tools — the Swinford/Texas Oilwell Partners portfolio represents a sustained enforcement risk for oilfield equipment manufacturers and coiled-tubing service companies. The court's ownership confirmation strengthens the plaintiffs' standing for any future assertion. Competitors operating in this technology space should evaluate FTO exposure against the full patent family.
Ongoing portfolio riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Jason L. Swinford | Individual | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Jerry Swinford | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Coil Tubing Technology, Inc. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Toucan Downhole Solutions, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Eric Paul Mirabel | Attorney | Counsel for Jason L. SwinfordSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Eric Scott Lipper | Attorney | Counsel for Jason L. SwinfordSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jeffrey A. Shadwick | Attorney | Counsel for Jason L. SwinfordSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Melissa Nicholson Sternfels | Attorney | Counsel for Jason L. SwinfordSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Sarah J. Ring | Attorney | Counsel for Jason L. SwinfordSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Eric P. Mirabel | Law Firm | Representing Jason L. SwinfordSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Hirsch & Westheimer PC | Law Firm | Representing Jason L. SwinfordSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Porter & Hedges LLP | Law Firm | Representing Jason L. SwinfordSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Shackelford, Bowen, McKinley& Norton LLP | Law Firm | Representing Jason L. SwinfordSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | D. John Neese | Attorney | Counsel for Coil Tubing Technology, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Holly Henderson Barnes | Attorney | Counsel for Coil Tubing Technology, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Meade & Neese LLP | Law Firm | Representing Coil Tubing Technology, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Alfred H Bennett | Judge | Texas Southern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the downhole oilfield tool patent space
Forward-looking patent and innovation intelligence derived from the Swinford v. Coil Tubing Technology dispute — mapped across the downhole tool sector.
Swinford/Texas Oilwell Partners: a deep downhole tool family
The ten patents-in-suit span application dates from 2007 to 2016, suggesting an active continuation filing programme. Monitoring the Texas Oilwell Partners and Swinford assignee names at the USPTO for pending continuations or new applications could reveal emerging claim scope before grant — a key intelligence signal for R&D teams designing next-generation downhole tools.
Portfolio monitoringFiling activity in downhole oscillation and rotation tools
Downhole oscillators, jet hammers, and rotational tools represent active innovation areas in coiled-tubing and drilling operations. Tracking filing trends in these sub-categories — particularly claims covering vibrational impact generation and eccentric drive mechanisms — helps R&D teams identify crowded claim spaces and whitespace for differentiated product development in the sector.
Filing trend analysisCoil Tubing Technology's patent position post-litigation
Coil Tubing Technology, Inc. and Toucan Downhole Solutions, LLC were defendants across a 10-patent assertion without an infringement finding being recorded. Analysing their own patent filing activity — if any — and assessing whether they hold defensive IP in adjacent downhole tool categories provides intelligence on competitive vulnerability and potential cross-licensing leverage for sector entrants.
Defendant IP postureAdjacent whitespace: wellbore cleaning and downhole amplification
Products like downhole amplification tools and linear/vibrational combination tools represent emerging functional categories within the wellbore intervention space. Mapping claim coverage in these sub-categories against recent filing activity can reveal design-around pathways or underserved technical problems — particularly around eccentric drive mechanisms, pressure-actuated percussion, and multi-mode downhole actuation.
Whitespace mappingSimilar downhole tool patent cases in the Southern District of Texas
Explore patent infringement cases involving downhole oilfield tools, coiled-tubing technology, and wellbore equipment litigated in the Southern District of Texas.
What this case signals for the downhole oilfield tool IP landscape
A 10-patent portfolio asserted by individual inventors against established service companies signals a maturing enforcement cycle in downhole tool innovation.
Ten-patent breadth signals a deliberate, portfolio-level enforcement strategy
Asserting ten patents across multiple downhole tool categories — from wellbore cleaning to jet motors and drilling jars — is consistent with a strategy designed to maximise licensing leverage and complicate a defendant's invalidity defence. Competitors in the coiled-tubing and downhole tool sector should audit exposure across the full Swinford/Texas Oilwell Partners family, not individual patents in isolation.
Court-confirmed ownership sets up stronger future enforcement
The final judgment's express ownership confirmation gives the plaintiffs a cleaner public record of title than a mere dismissal. This makes subsequent enforcement actions in any venue procedurally simpler. Companies acquiring or licensing downhole tool technology from Coil Tubing Technology or Toucan Downhole Solutions should conduct thorough chain-of-title diligence against the full Patents-in-Suit list.
Swinford v Coil — key questions answered
The plaintiffs asserted ten US patents: US9885212, US10113381, US9038744, US8151910, US8151908, US7946348, US7686102, US10024141, US10221644, and US9869129, collectively covering downhole oilfield tools including oscillators, jet hammers, drilling jars, rotation tools, wellbore cleaning apparatus, and jet motors.
The case settled after 1,413 days. The recorded Basis of Termination is 'Case Settled.' The court entered a final judgment on a Joint Motion confirming that Jason Swinford, Jerry Swinford, and Texas Oilwell Partners, LLC are the owners of all Patents-in-Suit. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs and attorneys' fees. The specific commercial terms of the settlement are not disclosed in the available record.
The court's final judgment expressly names Jason Swinford, Jerry Swinford, and Texas Oilwell Partners, LLC — as they designate among themselves — as the owners of all Patents-in-Suit. This court-entered ownership declaration applies to all ten US patents asserted in the case.
The accused products and patented technologies include apparatus for cleaning oil wellbores, downhole amplification tools, downhole oscillators, drilling jars, jet hammers, jet motors for providing rotation in downhole tools, linear and vibrational impact generating combination tools with adjustable eccentric drives, rotating tools, and rotation tools — spanning the coiled-tubing and downhole intervention tool sector.
The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas as Case No. 4:19-cv-02301 and was presided over by Judge Alfred H. Bennett. It was filed on June 26, 2019 and closed on May 9, 2023.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.