DCT

4:26-cv-07345

Derrick Corp v. Full Circle Energy LLC

Key Events

Complaint

complaint Intelligence

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Derrick Corporation (Delaware)
- Defendant: Full Circle Energy, LLC (Texas)
- Plaintiff's Counsel: Porter Hedges LLP
Case Identification: 4:26-cv-07345, S.D. Tex., 09/01/2026
Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendant Full Circle Energy, LLC resides in the district, has a regular and established place of business in the district, and has committed alleged acts of infringement within the district.
Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's replacement screening systems for vibratory shakers infringe a family of twelve patents and that Defendant has also breached a 2017 settlement agreement related to the same technology.
Technical Context: The technology concerns vibratory screening machines and replaceable screen assemblies, which are critical components in industries like oil and gas drilling for separating solids from drilling fluids.
Key Procedural History: The complaint details a long history of litigation and a subsequent settlement agreement. A 2017 Settlement Agreement resolved prior lawsuits, with the former defendants (including an alleged predecessor to Full Circle) admitting the validity and infringement of several patents related to the same "compression technology." The complaint alleges Full Circle is a successor in interest to a party to that agreement and is therefore bound by its covenant not to manufacture or sell the accused products.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2007-03-21	Earliest Priority Date for all Asserted Patents
2009-08-25	U.S. Patent No. 7,578,394 issues
2014-12-16	U.S. Patent No. 8,910,796 issues
2015-05-12	U.S. Patent No. 9,027,760 issues
2015-09-29	U.S. Patent No. 9,144,825 issues
2015-12-01	U.S. Patent No. 9,199,279 issues
2016-06-21	U.S. Patent No. 9,370,798 issues
2017-03-06	Settlement Agreement executed
2017	Strox Systems (alleged Full Circle affiliate) acquires Screen Logix
2018-03-13	U.S. Patent No. 9,914,153 issues
2018-05-01	U.S. Patent No. 9,956,591 issues
2020-03-31	U.S. Patent No. 10,603,692 issues
2021-04-13	U.S. Patent No. 10,974,282 issues
2022-05-24	U.S. Patent No. 11,338,327 issues
2022-05-31	U.S. Patent No. 11,344,917 issues
2025-09-01	Approximate start of period Walker allegedly advertised "upgrade kit"
2026-01-01	Approximate date of Walker's alleged marketing on LinkedIn
2026-02-27	Walker allegedly resigns from Full Circle
2026-09-01	Complaint filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 7,578,394 - "Method and Apparatuses for Screening"

Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,578,394, "Method and Apparatuses for Screening", issued August 25, 2009.

The Invention Explained

Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes how conventional vibratory screening machines use tensioned, substantially planar (flat) replaceable screens, which can lead to material building up at the screen edges, causing maintenance and contamination problems '394 Patent, col. 1:35-50
The Patented Solution: The invention uses a compression assembly to deform an otherwise flexible screen assembly into a concave shape against a support surface '394 Patent, col. 2:5-10 This concave screening surface helps to center the flow of material, preventing it from spilling over the sides and improving screening efficiency '394 Patent, col. 4:32-44
Technical Importance: By actively shaping the screen into a concave form during operation, the invention provides a more effective method for containing and processing material compared to traditional flat, tensioned screens.

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts infringement of one or more claims of the '394 Patent as detailed in Exhibit M, which was not provided with the complaint. As such, the specific asserted claims and their elements cannot be identified for analysis Compl. ¶48

U.S. Patent No. 8,910,796 - "Method and Apparatuses for Screening"

Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,910,796, "Method and Apparatuses for Screening", issued December 16, 2014.

The Invention Explained

Problem Addressed: Like its parent patent, the '796 Patent addresses the limitations of flat, tensioned screens in vibratory screening machines '796 Patent, col. 1:36-51
The Patented Solution: This patent builds on the core concept of forming a concave screen shape and further describes embodiments including a guide assembly attached to the machine's wall '796 Patent, col. 4:40-45 This guide assembly mates with a corresponding surface on the screen assembly to ensure the screen is easily and consistently positioned correctly for the compression assembly to act upon it '796 Patent, col. 3:56-65
Technical Importance: The addition of a guide assembly simplifies the process of installing and replacing screens, which is a key operational factor for machinery that requires frequent maintenance.

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts infringement of at least one claim of the '796 Patent as detailed in Exhibit N, which was not provided with the complaint. The specific asserted claims and their elements cannot be identified for analysis Compl. ¶56

U.S. Patent No. 9,027,760 - "Method and Apparatuses for Screening"

Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,027,760, "Method and Apparatuses for Screening", issued May 12, 2015 Compl. ¶29
Technology Synopsis: This patent, part of the same family, also relates to methods and apparatus for forming a replaceable screen into a concave shape using a compression assembly. It further details the use of guide assemblies to properly locate the screen within the screening machine '760 Patent, abstract '760 Patent, col. 4:45-52
Asserted Claims: One or more claims as set forth in the unprovided Exhibit O Compl. ¶64
Accused Features: The Accused Products, identified as replacement screens, are alleged to infringe when made, used, or sold Compl. ¶64

U.S. Patent No. 9,144,825 - "Method and Apparatuses for Screening"

Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,144,825, "Method and Apparatuses for Screening", issued September 29, 2015 Compl. ¶30
Technology Synopsis: This patent continues to describe screening machines that use compression to form a screen into a concave profile. It discloses screen assemblies with specific frame structures, such as a semi-rigid perforated support plate, and screening material that may be flat or undulating '825 Patent, abstract '825 Patent, col. 3:9-25
Asserted Claims: One or more claims as set forth in the unprovided Exhibit P Compl. ¶72
Accused Features: The Accused Products, identified as replacement screens, are alleged to infringe when made, used, or sold Compl. ¶72

U.S. Patent No. 9,199,279 - "Method and Apparatuses for Screening"

Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,199,279, "Method and Apparatuses for Screening", issued December 1, 2015 Compl. ¶31
Technology Synopsis: This patent also describes forming a screen into a concave shape. It details a system where the screen assembly has a mating surface that interfaces with a guide assembly on the screening machine to ensure it is guided into a fixed position before the compression force is applied '279 Patent, abstract '279 Patent, col. 4:14-25
Asserted Claims: One or more claims as set forth in the unprovided Exhibit Q Compl. ¶80
Accused Features: The Accused Products, identified as replacement screens, are alleged to infringe when made, used, or sold Compl. ¶80

U.S. Patent No. 9,370,798 - "Method and Apparatuses for Screening"

Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,370,798, "Method and Apparatuses for Screening", issued June 21, 2016 Compl. ¶32
Technology Synopsis: Continuing the theme, this patent discloses a screening machine with a compression assembly having a bar member hinged to the wall. Rotating the bar member asserts a force against the screen assembly, pressing it against a stop surface and forming it into the desired concave shape '798 Patent, col. 4:47-56
Asserted Claims: One or more claims as set forth in the unprovided Exhibit R Compl. ¶88
Accused Features: The Accused Products, identified as replacement screens, are alleged to infringe when made, used, or sold Compl. ¶88

U.S. Patent No. 9,914,153 - "Method and Apparatuses for Screening"

Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,914,153, "Method and Apparatuses for Screening", issued March 13, 2018 Compl. ¶33
Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a pre-formed screen assembly with a convex bottom portion designed to mate with the concave support surface of the screening machine. The compression assembly then secures the pre-formed screen in place, potentially without substantially deforming it further '153 Patent, col. 4:32-44
Asserted Claims: One or more claims as set forth in the unprovided Exhibit S Compl. ¶96
Accused Features: The Accused Products, identified as replacement screens, are alleged to infringe when made, used, or sold Compl. ¶96

U.S. Patent No. 9,956,591 - "Method and Apparatuses for Screening"

Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,956,591, "Method and Apparatuses for Screening", issued May 1, 2018 Compl. ¶34
Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a screen assembly where the frame itself is configured to flex or deflect to form the concave shape when a compression force is applied. It highlights a frame with a first and second side member, where the compression force acts on one side while the other is driven against a surface '591 Patent, claim 1
Asserted Claims: One or more claims as set forth in the unprovided Exhibit T Compl. ¶104
Accused Features: The Accused Products, identified as replacement screens, are alleged to infringe when made, used, or sold Compl. ¶104

U.S. Patent No. 10,603,692 - "Method and Apparatus for Screening"

Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,603,692, "Method and Apparatus for Screening", issued March 31, 2020 Compl. ¶35
Technology Synopsis: This patent covers a screen assembly with an apertured support plate and screening material, where a bottom surface is configured to deflect downward to interact with a support surface when compressive forces are applied. The claims focus on the structural attributes of the screen assembly itself and its deflection under compression '692 Patent, claim 7
Asserted Claims: One or more claims as set forth in the unprovided Exhibit U Compl. ¶112
Accused Features: The Accused Products, identified as replacement screens, are alleged to infringe when made, used, or sold Compl. ¶112

U.S. Patent No. 10,974,282 - "Method and Apparatuses for Screening"

Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,974,282, "Method and Apparatuses for Screening", issued April 13, 2021 Compl. ¶36
Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a system including the vibratory screening machine and the screen assembly. It describes the compression assembly driving the screen assembly against a stop surface on a second wall member to form the concave shape against a support surface '282 Patent, claim 9
Asserted Claims: One or more claims as set forth in the unprovided Exhibit V Compl. ¶120
Accused Features: The Accused Products, identified as replacement screens, are alleged to infringe when made, used, or sold Compl. ¶120

U.S. Patent No. 11,338,327 - "Method and Apparatuses for Screening"

Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,338,327, "Method and Apparatuses for Screening", issued May 24, 2022 Compl. ¶37
Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a screen assembly with a frame and screening surface configured to flex into a predetermined concave shape. It emphasizes the interaction where a compression force acts on a first side member and drives a second side member against a surface of the machine '327 Patent, claim 1
Asserted Claims: One or more claims as set forth in the unprovided Exhibit W Compl. ¶128
Accused Features: The Accused Products, identified as replacement screens, are alleged to infringe when made, used, or sold Compl. ¶128

U.S. Patent No. 11,344,917 - "Method and Apparatus for Screening"

Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,344,917, "Method and Apparatus for Screening", issued May 31, 2022 Compl. ¶38
Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a vibratory screening machine system where the compression assembly is configured to exert a force on a "rigid member" of the replaceable screen assembly to deform it. This introduces the concept of acting on a rigid member specifically to achieve the deformation '917 Patent, claim 1
Asserted Claims: One or more claims as set forth in the unprovided Exhibit X Compl. ¶136
Accused Features: The Accused Products, identified as replacement screens, are alleged to infringe when made, used, or sold Compl. ¶136

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused products are identified as "replacement screens and related screen mounting devices" that are marketed and sold for use in Plaintiff's Derrick Hyperpool® and Hyperpool GT® vibratory screening machines Compl. ¶2 Compl. ¶23 The complaint specifically names "SierraTM" screens and a "Hypa Flo Upgrade kit for Hyperpool® shakers" as accused products offered by Full Circle Compl. ¶22 Compl. ¶23

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges the Accused Products are "specifically designed to be installed in, and used with, Derrick's Hyperpool® and Hyperpool GT®" machines Compl. ¶25 Their function is to act as consumable, replaceable screen surfaces that allegedly "employ the compression technology" of the asserted patents when installed Compl. ¶23 A LinkedIn post included in the complaint shows an individual, allegedly acting on behalf of a division of Full Circle, marketing "solids control/ screen manufacturing" expertise and products Compl. ¶11 Compl. p. 3 The complaint alleges these products have no substantial non-infringing use Compl. ¶26

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references but does not include Exhibits M through X, which allegedly contain detailed claim charts mapping asserted claims to the Accused Products. In the absence of these exhibits, the infringement allegations are summarized below in prose.

Narrative Infringement Theory

For each of the twelve asserted patents, the complaint alleges that the Defendant directly infringes, contributorily infringes, and induces infringement (e.g.,Compl. ¶48; Compl. ¶49; Compl. ¶50; Compl. ¶51; Compl. ¶52). The core theory is that end-users directly infringe the patents when they install and operate the Accused Products (replacement screens) in Derrick's own vibratory screening machines Compl. ¶49 Defendant is alleged to be liable for contributory infringement because the screens are a material component of the patented inventions, are specially made for an infringing use, and have no substantial non-infringing use Compl. ¶49 Induced infringement is alleged based on Defendant actively encouraging and instructing customers to install and use the Accused Products in a manner that infringes, supported by marketing materials and technical support Compl. ¶51

Identified Points of Contention

Scope Questions: The asserted patents claim systems and methods involving both a screen assembly and a compression mechanism. A central question will be whether the claims can be read to cover the actions of Defendant, who sells only the passive screen assembly component. The analysis may focus on whether the accused screens are merely commodity-like replacements or if they possess specific structural features "configured to" interact with the Derrick machine's compression assembly in a way that directly practices a claimed step.
Technical Questions: A key technical question for the court may be one of intent and design. What evidence, beyond compatibility, shows that the Accused Products were "especially made or especially adapted" for infringement, as required for contributory infringement Compl. ¶49? This may involve examining the design of the screen frames and their interaction with the compression mechanisms of the Derrick machines, as compared to the specific structures and deflection behaviors described in the patents.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "screen assembly"

Context and Importance: This term is central because the Accused Products are replacement "screen assemblies" or "screens." The definition of what constitutes the "screen assembly" as claimed will be critical for determining the boundary between the accused component supplied by the Defendant and the patented invention as a whole, which also includes parts of the Derrick machine.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims often recite "a screen assembly" followed by functional or structural limitations, without requiring all components to be a single, pre-packaged unit. For example, claim 7 of the '692 Patent recites an assembly comprising a support plate and screening material, which could be interpreted to cover components assembled at the time of installation '692 Patent, col. 19:21-29
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification frequently illustrates the "screen assembly" as an integrated unit with a frame, support plate, and screen material bonded together (e.g.,'692 Patent, FIG. 4). A defendant may argue that the term should be limited to such an integrated article of manufacture.

The Term: "compression assembly"

Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because the "compression assembly" is the active component that deforms the screen, and it is part of the Derrick machine, not the accused replacement screen sold by the Defendant. The infringement case hinges on linking the Defendant's screen to the function of this machine part.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patents consistently define the "compression assembly" functionally as the component "configured to assert a force" to deform the screen '282 Patent, claim 9 This functional definition is broad and focuses on the role the component plays within the overall system.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides detailed embodiments of the compression assembly, including retractable pins, hinged bar members, and spring-loaded mechanisms '394 Patent, FIG. 6 '798 Patent, FIG. 35 A party could argue that the term should be construed in light of these specific disclosed mechanisms, though this is less likely to limit the term's general meaning.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint pleads both contributory and induced infringement for all twelve asserted patents. The factual basis for contributory infringement is that the accused screens are a material part of the patented invention, are not staple articles of commerce, and have no substantial non-infringing use (e.g., Compl. ¶49; Compl. ¶57). The basis for inducement includes allegations that Full Circle provides instructions, marketing, and technical support that encourage customers to install and use the screens in an infringing manner (e.g., Compl. ¶51; Compl. ¶59).

Willful Infringement

Willfulness is alleged for all patent counts. The complaint asserts that Defendant had knowledge of the patents at least by virtue of the March 6, 2017 Settlement Agreement involving its alleged predecessor, as well as through Plaintiff's patent marking (e.g., Compl. ¶50; Compl. ¶52; Compl. ¶58). The complaint alleges that infringement in the face of this knowledge has been and continues to be "willful and deliberate" (e.g.,Compl. ¶50).

VII. Analyst's Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

A primary issue will be one of contractual succession: Can Derrick prove that Full Circle Energy is a "successor in interest" to Screen Logix and therefore bound by the 2017 Settlement Agreement? The outcome of this question could be dispositive for the breach of contract claim and highly influential for establishing knowledge and willfulness in the patent claims.
A key question for infringement will be one of indirect liability: Given that direct infringement occurs only when customers combine Defendant's replacement screens with Plaintiff's machines, can Derrick present sufficient evidence of Defendant's specific intent and affirmative acts to encourage infringement to prevail on its inducement claim, and prove the screens are not suitable for substantial non-infringing use to prevail on its contributory infringement claim?
A central question for damages will be egregiousness: Does the extensive prior litigation and the 2017 Settlement Agreement, which explicitly addressed the same technology, constitute such clear notice that any subsequent infringement by a related party would be considered willful, potentially justifying enhanced damages and attorneys' fees?