throbber
Case 4:18-cv-00803 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 03/14/18 Page 1 of 17
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`HOUSTON DIVISION
`
`Civil Action No. 4:18­cv­00803
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
`
`CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`IN-DEPTH COMPRESSIVE SEISMIC,
`INC. and IN-DEPTH GEOPHYSICAL,
`INC.
`
`Defendants.
`
`PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT AND
`REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION
`
`Plaintiff ConocoPhillips Company (“ConocoPhillips”) by and through its undersigned
`
`attorneys, files this Complaint against In-Depth Compressive Seismic, Inc. and In-Depth
`
`Geophysical, Inc. (collectively, “In-Depth” or “Defendants”), and alleges as follows:
`
`PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff ConocoPhillips Company is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters
`
`and principal place of business located at 600 North Dairy Ashford, Houston, TX 77252.
`
`2.
`
`Defendant In-Depth Compressive Seismic, Inc. is a Texas corporation with a
`
`principal place of business at 1660 Townhurst Dr Ste A, Houston, TX 77043. In-Depth
`
`Compressive Seismic, Inc.’s registered agent for service of process in Texas is Zhaobo Meng,
`
`1660 Townhurst Dr Ste A, Houston, TX 77043.
`
`3.
`
`Defendant In-Depth Geophysical, Inc. is a Texas corporation with a principal place
`
`of business at 1660 Townhurst Dr Ste A, Houston, TX 77043. In-Depth Geophysical, Inc.’s
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-00803 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 03/14/18 Page 2 of 17
`
`registered agent for service of process in Texas is Zhaobo Meng, 1660 Townhurst Dr Ste A,
`
`Houston, TX 77043.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`4.
`
`This is a civil action that arises under the Patent Laws of the United States, 35
`
`U.S.C. § 1 et seq., including but not limited to 35 U.S.C. §§ 271 and 281. The Court has subject
`
`matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338.
`
`5.
`
`This is also an action for false and misleading description arising under the Lanham
`
`Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125, and under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338. This Court also has subject matter
`
`jurisdiction pursuant to Section 39 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1121, and under 28 U.S.C. §§
`
`1331 and 1338
`
`6.
`
`The Court has both general and specific personal jurisdiction over Defendants
`
`because each of the Defendants is a resident of the State of Texas, is incorporated in the State of
`
`Texas, has its principal place of business in the State of Texas and in this judicial district, each
`
`continuously and systematically conducts business in the State of Texas and in this judicial district,
`
`and because this lawsuit arises from conduct of the Defendants that occurred in Texas. Exercising
`
`personal jurisdiction over each Defendant in this lawsuit comports with due process and traditional
`
`notions of fair play and substantial justice.
`
`7.
`
`Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and § 1400(b) because
`
`each of the Defendants is subject to personal jurisdiction in this district, resides in this district, has
`
`a regular and established place of business in this district, and has committed and/or induced acts
`
`of infringement in this district.
`
`FACTS
`
`8.
`
`ConocoPhillips is a market-leading innovator in the development and advancement
`
`of compressive sensing technology for seismic data acquisition for oil and gas exploration.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-00803 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 03/14/18 Page 3 of 17
`
`9.
`
`Seismic data acquisition includes transmitting acoustic signals over a geographical
`
`area of a geological formation and collecting reflections of those acoustic signals from the
`
`geological formation at designed locations. The collected reflections can then be processed to
`
`reveal information about the structure and makeup of the geological formation. Compressive
`
`sensing technology serves to reduce the acoustic signals that must be transmitted, collected, and
`
`processed to obtain accurate information related to the structure and makeup of the geological
`
`formation.
`
`10.
`
`Starting at least in 2010, ConocoPhillips began developing and pioneered a non-
`
`uniform optimized sampling (“NUOS”) based compressive sensing technology, which it calls
`
`Compressive Seismic Imaging (“CSI”). CSI may be used in seismic data acquisition, processing
`
`and imaging. ConocoPhillips’ CSI technology improved upon existing compressive sensing
`
`technology, which was based on a random sampling approach, and resulted in higher seismic data
`
`quality while requiring fewer resources than existing compressive sensing technology.
`
`11.
`
`ConocoPhillips filed numerous patent applications related to all aspects of CSI
`
`technology, including on the design of a non-uniform optimized sampling survey grid, the
`
`acquisition process for acquiring non-uniform optimized sampling seismic data, and the
`
`deblending, reconstruction, and processing of the seismic data received from the acquisition
`
`process.
`
`12.
`
`ConocoPhillips has devoted substantial time, effort, and resources to the
`
`development and promotion of its NUOS CSI technology. As a result, the geophysical services
`
`industry has come to recognize and rely upon ConocoPhillips’s NUOS CSI technology as the
`
`market leader in compressive sensing technology for oil and gas exploration.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-00803 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 03/14/18 Page 4 of 17
`
`Patents-in-Suit
`
`13.
`
`On November 25, 2014, U.S. Patent 8,897,094 (“the ’094 Patent”), entitled “Marine
`
`Seismic Data Acquisition Using Designed Non-Uniform Streamer Spacing” was duly and legally
`
`issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to Peter M. Eick and Joel D. Brewer. A true and
`
`correct copy of the ’094 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
`
`14.
`
`On April 25, 2017 the U.S. Patent 9,632,193 (“the ’193 Patent”), entitled
`
`“Compressive Sensing,” was duly and legally issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to
`
`Chengbo Li, Sam T. Kaplan, Charles C. Mosher, Joel D. Brewer, and Robert G. Keys. A true and
`
`correct copy of the ’193 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
`
`15.
`
`On November 21, 2017, U.S. Patent 9,823,372 (“the ’372 Patent”), entitled
`
`“Controlled Spaced Streamer Acquisition,” was duly and legally issued by the U.S. Patent and
`
`Trademark Office to Peter M. Eick and Joel D. Brewer. A true and correct copy of the ’372 Patent
`
`is attached hereto as Exhibit 3.
`
`16.
`
`On December 19, 2017, U.S. Patent 9,846,248 (“the ’248 Patent”), entitled
`
`“Seismic Data Acquisition Using Designed Non-Uniform Receiver Spacing,” was duly and legally
`
`issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to Peter M. Eick and Joel D. Brewer. A true and
`
`correct copy of the ’248 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 4.
`
`17.
`
`Together, the foregoing patents are referred to herein as the “Patents-in-Suit.”
`
`ConocoPhillips is the assignee of the Patents-in-Suit, and has all substantial rights to sue for
`
`infringement.
`
`Defendants’ Acts
`
`18.
`
`On information and belief, In-Depth provides software and services related to
`
`compressive sensing technology.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-00803 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 03/14/18 Page 5 of 17
`
`19.
`
`For example, In-Depth offers compressive seismic acquisition services, which it
`
`calls “CS-Acquisition.”
`
`Available at http://indepthcompressive.com/.
`
`Available at http://indepthcompressive.com/technology/cs-acquisition/.
`
`Available at http://indepthcompressive.com/services/onshore/;
`
`http://indepthcompressive.com/services/offshore/.
`
`20.
`
`In-Depth claims that it offers compressive seismic acquisition services based on a
`
`“non-uniform sampling theory” that is “optimized,” including designing optimized seismic
`
`surveys for clients.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-00803 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 03/14/18 Page 6 of 17
`
`21.
`
`On information and belief, In-Depth performs and/or offers its “non-uniform”
`
`“optimized” CS-Acquisition sampling services in at least Texas and Louisiana for onshore services
`
`and in the Gulf of Mexico for its offshore services.
`
`22.
`
`On information and belief, In-Depth performs or directs others to perform
`
`acquisition services based on its parameters and specifications defined by its “non-uniform”
`
`“optimized” CS-Acquisition sampling survey design.
`
`23.
`
`In July 2017, Peter Eick, an employee of In-Depth and a former employee of
`
`ConocoPhillips, sent a letter to ConocoPhillips requesting a license to 25 patents owned by
`
`ConocoPhillips and invented by Mr. Eick. ConocoPhillips declined the request.
`
`24.
`
`Representatives of In-Depth attended and presented at the 88th Society of
`
`Exploration Geophysicists (SEG) annual meeting held in Houston in September 2017, which is
`
`the most important annual technical conference among the seismic exploration professionals in the
`
`world.
`
`25.
`
`26.
`
`Representatives of ConocoPhillips also attended the SEG annual meeting in 2017.
`
`During this conference, representatives of In-Depth described to attendees of the
`
`SEG annual meeting that its compressive sampling technology is “exactly” the same as that of
`
`ConocoPhillips.
`
`27.
`
`On September 27, 2017, representatives of ConocoPhillips also gave a presentation
`
`about its CSI technology to attendees at the SEG annual meeting. After the ConocoPhillips
`
`presentation, Mr. Eick thanked the presenter from ConocoPhillips for the “great publicity” that
`
`ConocoPhillips had provided for In-Depth and its own technology while potential customers and
`
`others in the industry were present.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-00803 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 03/14/18 Page 7 of 17
`
`28.
`
`In-Depth has falsely informed and misled others in the industry by indicating that
`
`In-Depth has a “truce” with ConocoPhillips, thereby implying that ConocoPhillips has licensed its
`
`CSI technology and patents to In-Depth or that ConocoPhillips has agreed not to enforce its patents
`
`against In-Depth or In-Depth’s clients.
`
`29.
`
`ConocoPhillips’ efforts to license CSI technology have been directly and adversely
`
`affected by the aforementioned In-Depth misrepresentations.
`
`CAUSES OF ACTION
`
`Count 1: Patent Infringement of the ’094 Patent
`
`30.
`
`ConocoPhillips incorporates by reference and realleges Paragraphs 1-29 of its
`
`Complaint, as though fully set forth herein.
`
`31.
`
`32.
`
`ConocoPhillips is the owner of all right, title, and interest in and to the ’094 Patent.
`
`As the owner of the ’094 Patent, ConocoPhillips is authorized and has standing to
`
`bring legal action to enforce all rights arising under the ’094 Patent.
`
`33.
`
`34.
`
`The ’094 Patent is presumed valid pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 282.
`
`ConocoPhillips has practiced the ’094 Patent in connection with its NUOS CSI
`
`technology (including hardware and software) and services.
`
`35.
`
`Defendants are not licensed to make, use, sell, offer to sell, or import any product
`
`or service that is covered by the claims of the ’094 Patent.
`
`36.
`
`On information and belief, Defendants, without authorization or license from
`
`ConocoPhillips, have infringed, and will continue to infringe at least claim 1 of the ’094 Patent in
`
`violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271, by making, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or offering to perform
`
`methods and articles that conduct compressive seismic acquisition of data based on a non-uniform
`
`optimized sampling survey design, including In-Depth’s CS-Acquisition products and services.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-00803 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 03/14/18 Page 8 of 17
`
`37.
`
`On information and belief, Defendants have actual knowledge of the ’094 Patent
`
`and actual knowledge that their activities constitute direct infringement of the ’094 Patent, or have
`
`willfully blinded themselves to the infringing nature of their activities, and yet continue their
`
`infringing activities.
`
`38.
`
`On information and belief, Defendants have actively induced and continue to
`
`induce others to infringe one or more claims of the ’094 Patent. On information and belief,
`
`Defendants direct others to perform acquisition services based on parameters and specifications
`
`defined by Defendants’ “non-uniform” “optimized” CS-Acquisition sampling survey design.
`
`39.
`
`On information and belief, Defendants’ infringement of the ’094 Patent has been
`
`and will continue to be willful, deliberate and intentional.
`
`40.
`
`As a result of Defendants’ infringement of the ’094 Patent, ConocoPhillips has
`
`suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law,
`
`unless Defendants are preliminarily and permanently enjoined by this Court. Furthermore, the
`
`public interest would be served by issuance of an injunction.
`
`41.
`
`As a result of Defendants’ infringing activities, ConocoPhillips has suffered actual
`
`damages in an amount to be determined at trial. Additionally, as a result of the willful and
`
`deliberate nature of Defendants’ infringing activities, ConocoPhillips is entitled to a trebling of its
`
`actual damages and is entitled to recover its attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in prosecuting this
`
`action.
`
`Count 2: Patent Infringement of the ’193 Patent
`
`42.
`
`ConocoPhillips incorporates by reference and realleges Paragraphs 1-41 of its
`
`Complaint, as though fully set forth herein.
`
`43.
`
`ConocoPhillips is the owner of all right, title, and interest in and to the ’193 Patent.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-00803 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 03/14/18 Page 9 of 17
`
`44.
`
`As the owner of the ’193 Patent, ConocoPhillips is authorized and has standing to
`
`bring legal action to enforce all rights arising under the ’193 Patent.
`
`45.
`
`46.
`
`The ’193 Patent is presumed valid pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 282.
`
`ConocoPhillips has practiced the ’193 Patent in connection with its NUOS CSI
`
`technology (including hardware and software) and services.
`
`47.
`
`Defendants are not licensed to make, use, sell, offer to sell, or import any product
`
`or service that is covered by the claims of the ’193 Patent.
`
`48.
`
`On information and belief, Defendants, without authorization or license from
`
`ConocoPhillips, have infringed, and will continue to infringe at least claim 1 of the ’193 Patent in
`
`violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271, by making, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or offering to perform
`
`methods and articles that conduct non-uniform optimized sampling for compressive sampling
`
`survey design, including In-Depth’s CS-Acquisition products and services.
`
`49.
`
`On information and belief, Defendants have actual knowledge of the ’193 Patent
`
`and actual knowledge that their activities constitute direct infringement of the ’193 Patent, or have
`
`willfully blinded themselves to the infringing nature of their activities, and yet continue their
`
`infringing activities.
`
`50.
`
`On information and belief, Defendants have actively induced and continue to
`
`induce others to infringe one or more claims of the ’193 Patent.
`
`51.
`
`On information and belief, Defendants’ infringement of the ’193 Patent has been
`
`and will continue to be willful, deliberate and intentional.
`
`52.
`
`As a result of Defendants’ infringement of the ’193 Patent, ConocoPhillips has
`
`suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law,
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-00803 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 03/14/18 Page 10 of 17
`
`unless Defendants are preliminarily and permanently enjoined by this Court. Furthermore, the
`
`public interest would be served by issuance of an injunction.
`
`53.
`
`As a result of Defendants’ infringing activities, ConocoPhillips has suffered actual
`
`damages in an amount to be determined at trial. Additionally, as a result of the willful and
`
`deliberate nature of Defendants’ infringing activities, ConocoPhillips is entitled to a trebling of its
`
`actual damages and is entitled to recover its attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in prosecuting this
`
`action.
`
`Count 3: Patent Infringement of the ’372 Patent
`
`54.
`
`ConocoPhillips incorporates by reference and realleges Paragraphs 1-53 of its
`
`Complaint, as though fully set forth herein.
`
`55.
`
`56.
`
`ConocoPhillips is the owner of all right, title, and interest in and to the ’372 Patent.
`
`As the owner of the ’372 Patent, ConocoPhillips is authorized and has standing to
`
`bring legal action to enforce all rights arising under the ’372 Patent.
`
`57.
`
`58.
`
`The ’372 Patent is presumed valid pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 282.
`
`ConocoPhillips has practiced the ’372 Patent in connection with its NUOS CSI
`
`technology (including hardware and software) and services.
`
`59.
`
`Defendants are not licensed to make, use, sell, offer to sell, or import any product
`
`or service that is covered by the claims of the ’372 Patent.
`
`60.
`
`On information and belief, Defendants, without authorization or license from
`
`ConocoPhillips, have infringed, and will continue to infringe at least claim 1 of the ’372 Patent in
`
`violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271, by making, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or offering to perform
`
`methods and articles that conduct compressive seismic acquisition of data based on a non-uniform
`
`optimized sampling survey design, including In-Depth’s CS-Acquisition products and services.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-00803 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 03/14/18 Page 11 of 17
`
`61.
`
`On information and belief, Defendants have actual knowledge of the ’372 Patent
`
`and actual knowledge that their activities constitute direct infringement of the ’372 Patent, or have
`
`willfully blinded themselves to the infringing nature of their activities, and yet continue their
`
`infringing activities.
`
`62.
`
`On information and belief, Defendants have actively induced and continue to
`
`induce others to infringe one or more claims of the ’372 Patent. On information and belief,
`
`Defendants direct others to perform acquisition services based on parameters and specifications
`
`defined by Defendants’ “non-uniform” “optimized” sampling survey design.
`
`63.
`
`On information and belief, Defendants’ infringement of the ’372 Patent has been
`
`and will continue to be willful, deliberate and intentional.
`
`64.
`
`As a result of Defendants’ infringement of the ’372 Patent, ConocoPhillips has
`
`suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law,
`
`unless Defendants are preliminarily and permanently enjoined by this Court. Furthermore, the
`
`public interest would be served by issuance of an injunction.
`
`65.
`
`As a result of Defendants’ infringing activities, ConocoPhillips has suffered actual
`
`damages in an amount to be determined at trial. Additionally, as a result of the willful and
`
`deliberate nature of Defendants’ infringing activities, ConocoPhillips is entitled to a trebling of its
`
`actual damages and is entitled to recover its attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in prosecuting this
`
`action.
`
`Count 4: Patent Infringement of the ’248 Patent
`
`66.
`
`ConocoPhillips incorporates by reference and realleges Paragraphs 1-65 of its
`
`Complaint, as though fully set forth herein.
`
`67.
`
`ConocoPhillips is the owner of all right, title, and interest in and to the ’248 Patent.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-00803 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 03/14/18 Page 12 of 17
`
`68.
`
`As the owner of the ’193 Patent, ConocoPhillips is authorized and has standing to
`
`bring legal action to enforce all rights arising under the ’248 Patent.
`
`69.
`
`70.
`
`The ’248 Patent is presumed valid pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 282.
`
`ConocoPhillips has practiced the ’248 Patent in connection with its NUOS CSI
`
`technology (including hardware and software) and services.
`
`71.
`
`Defendants are not licensed to make, use, sell, offer to sell, or import any product
`
`or service that is covered by the claims of the ’248 Patent.
`
`72.
`
`On information and belief, Defendants, without authorization or license from
`
`ConocoPhillips, have infringed, and will continue to infringe at least claim 1 of the ’248 Patent in
`
`violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271, by making, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or offering to perform
`
`methods and articles that conduct compressive seismic acquisition of data based on a non-uniform
`
`optimized sampling survey design, including In-Depth’s CS-Acquisition products and services.
`
`73.
`
`On information and belief, Defendants have actual knowledge of the ’248 Patent
`
`and actual knowledge that their activities constitute direct infringement of the ’248 Patent, or have
`
`willfully blinded themselves to the infringing nature of their activities, and yet continue their
`
`infringing activities.
`
`74.
`
`On information and belief, Defendants have actively induced and continue to
`
`induce others to infringe one or more claims of the ’248 Patent. On information and belief,
`
`Defendants direct others to perform acquisition services based on parameters and specifications
`
`defined by Defendants’ “non-uniform” “optimized” sampling survey design.
`
`75.
`
`On information and belief, Defendants’ infringement of the ’248 Patent has been
`
`and will continue to be willful, deliberate and intentional.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-00803 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 03/14/18 Page 13 of 17
`
`76.
`
`As a result of Defendants’ infringement of the ’248 Patent, ConocoPhillips has
`
`suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law,
`
`unless Defendants are preliminarily and permanently enjoined by this Court. Furthermore, the
`
`public interest would be served by issuance of an injunction.
`
`77.
`
`As a result of Defendants’ infringing activities, ConocoPhillips has suffered actual
`
`damages in an amount to be determined at trial. Additionally, as a result of the willful and
`
`deliberate nature of Defendants’ infringing activities, ConocoPhillips is entitled to a trebling of its
`
`actual damages and is entitled to recover its attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in prosecuting this
`
`action.
`
`Count 5: Lanham Act – False, Deceptive, and Misleading Representation of Fact
`
`78.
`
`ConocoPhillips incorporates by reference and realleges Paragraphs 1-77 of its
`
`Complaint, as though fully set forth herein.
`
`79.
`
`Defendants’ acts violate Section 43(a)(1)(A) of the Lanham Act. 15 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1125(a)(1)(A).
`
`80.
`
`Defendants have claimed that their “non-uniform” “optimized” CS-Acquisition
`
`seismic survey designs are “exactly” like those of ConocoPhillips.
`
`81.
`
`Defendants’ statements constitute false descriptions of their services and products
`
`and false representations that Defendants’ services and/or products are of the same quality and
`
`performance as ConocoPhillips’ NUOS CSI services and offerings.
`
`82.
`
`Defendants’ statements are misleading to actual and potential customers of
`
`ConocoPhillips’ NUOS CSI services and offerings.
`
`83.
`
`On information and belief, these statements are material and likely to influence a
`
`customer’s purchasing decision for compressive sampling services and products for survey design
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-00803 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 03/14/18 Page 14 of 17
`
`and seismic acquisition in oil and gas exploration by representing that customers can achieve the
`
`same quality of compressive seismic sampling results as those offered by ConocoPhillips.
`
`84.
`
`These statements have proximately caused and/or are likely to cause injury to
`
`Plaintiff by diverting sales from Plaintiff to Defendants.
`
`85.
`
`As a result of Defendants’ allegations in the marketplace, ConocoPhillips has
`
`suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable and monetary harm in an amount to be determined
`
`at trial. ConocoPhillips will suffer direct monetary damages from the loss of licensing
`
`opportunities, licensing fees, and/or sales to customers who select Defendants’ services and
`
`products instead of ConocoPhillips’ NUOS CSI services and offerings.
`
`86.
`
`On information and belief, Defendants’ acts of false and misleading advertising
`
`will continue unless enjoined by the Court. Unless Defendants are enjoined by the Court from
`
`continuing their false and misleading representations, ConocoPhillips will suffer additional
`
`irreparable harm. ConocoPhillips has no adequate remedy at law for these wrongs and injuries,
`
`and thus, ConocoPhillips is entitled to preliminary and permanent injunctions against further false
`
`and misleading representations by Defendants.
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`87.
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b), ConocoPhillips requests a trial
`
`by jury on all issues.
`
`PRAYER
`
`88.
`
`For these reasons, ConocoPhillips asks for a judgment against Defendants that
`
`includes the following relief:
`
`(A) A finding that Defendants have infringed each of the Patents-in-Suit;
`
`(B) A preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining In-Depth, its owners, affiliates,
`
`officers, directors, managers, agents, servants, employees, trainees, and all persons
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-00803 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 03/14/18 Page 15 of 17
`
`in active concert or participation with it, from continuing to infringe the Patents-in-
`
`Suit;
`
`(C) A preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining In-Depth, its owners, affiliates,
`
`officers, directors, managers, agents, servants, employees, trainees, and all persons
`
`in active concert or participation with it, from continuing to make misleading and
`
`false representations regarding its services and products;
`
`(D) An award of damages adequate to compensate ConocoPhillips for In-Depth’s
`
`infringement of the Patents-in-Suit pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284;
`
`(E)
`
`A determination that In-Depth’s infringement of the Patents-in-Suit has been
`
`willful and deliberate;
`
`(F)
`
`A determination that this case is “exceptional” under 35 U.S.C. § 285, thereby
`
`entitling ConocoPhillips to an award of its reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs
`
`incurred in prosecuting this action;
`
`(G) An award of treble damages based on the willful and deliberate nature of In-Depth’s
`
`infringement;
`
`(H) An award of damages adequate to compensate ConocoPhillips for In-Depth’s
`
`misleading and false representations under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1111, 1114, and 1117(a);
`
`An award of pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on all damages computed;
`
`An award of court costs; and
`
`(I)
`
`(J)
`
`(K)
`
`Such other relief as this Court deems fair, just, and appropriate.
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-00803 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 03/14/18 Page 16 of 17
`
`Dated: March 14, 2018
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
` /s/ Rick L. Rambo
`
`Rick L. Rambo, Attorney-in-Charge
`State Bar No. 00791479
`Southern District of Texas No. 18202
`rick.rambo@morganlewis.com
`David J. Levy
`State Bar No. 12264850
`Southern District of Texas No. 13725
`david.levy@morganlewis.com
`MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
`1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 4000
`Houston, Texas 77002-5006
`T. 713.890.5000
`F. 713.890.5001
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff ConocoPhillips
`Company
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-00803 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 03/14/18 Page 17 of 17
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on March 14, 2018, I electronically transmitted this Plaintiff’s
`
`Complaint and Request for Preliminary and Permanent Injunction to the Clerk of the Court using
`
`the Court’s CM/ECF system. I further certify that counsel of record for Plaintiff is being served
`
`with an electronic copy by email.
`
`By: /s/ Rick L. Rambo
`Rick L. Rambo
`
`
`
`17
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket