Del Corp v. Texas J&A

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Del Corp (Louisiana)
  • Defendant: TEXAS J&A SERVICE, LLC (Texas)
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: Jones Walker LLP
• Case Identification: Del Corp v. TEXAS J&A SERVICE, LLC, 7:26-cv-00309, W.D. Tex., 08/10/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant maintaining a regular and established place of business within the district, from which it allegedly stores, maintains, repairs, and dispatches the accused infringing systems.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's hydrocyclone-based and feedbox-based flowback separation systems infringe four patents related to technology for separating solids from fluids recovered from hydrocarbon wells.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves multi-stage systems used in the oil and gas industry to process "flowback" fluid from wells, separating out sand and other solids to enable fluid reuse or disposal.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the '300 patent via written notice on June 11, 2025, and of the '953, '406, and '654 patents via correspondence as of November 14, 2025, which forms the basis for Plaintiff's willfulness claims. Plaintiff also alleges it marks its commercial products with the numbers of the patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2017-12-21	Priority Date for '953, '406, and '654 Patents
2019-09-04	Priority Date for '300 Patent
2020-08-25	'654 Patent Issued
2021-06-22	'300 Patent Issued
2022-05-10	'406 Patent Issued
2023-04-25	'953 Patent Issued
2025-06-11	Pre-suit notice of '300 Patent infringement alleged
2025-11-14	Pre-suit knowledge of '953, '406, and '654 Patents alleged
2026-08-10	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,634,953 - "Flow Back Separation System and Method"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,634,953, "Flow Back Separation System and Method," issued April 25, 2023.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the need to remove sand and other solids from fluids recovered from hydrocarbon wells, a process known as flowback separation, to improve operational efficiency and manage recovered materials Compl. ¶23
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a multi-stage separation system. Slurry from a well enters a tank where a degassing unit removes entrained gas Compl. ¶25 Heavier solids settle and are moved by a conveying device to a pump, which sends a concentrated slurry to a hydrocyclone unit '953 Patent, abstract The hydrocyclone separates the stream into an "overflow" of clean fluid and an "underflow" of solids '953 Patent, abstract The solids-rich underflow is sent to a shaker for dewatering, and a resulting "third slurry" is recirculated back into the tank '953 Patent, abstract '953 Patent, Fig. 8 The clean fluid is either discharged or further processed.
• Technical Importance: This integrated, multi-step process allows for the continuous and efficient separation of solids from well fluids at the well site, a key logistical and economic challenge in modern oil and gas extraction Compl. ¶23

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 Compl. ¶45
• Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
  • A tank with front, mid-, and rear sections.
  • A degassing unit to remove gas and discharge a first slurry into the tank.
  • A conveying device to move settled solids toward a first conduit.
  • A pump to move a second slurry through the first conduit.
  • A hydrocyclone unit to process the second slurry, producing a clean fluid overflow and a solids-laden underflow.
  • A shaker to dewater the underflow solids, producing dried solids and a "third slurry" that is deposited back into the tank for recirculation.
  • A second conduit to return the clean fluid overflow from the hydrocyclone to the tank.
  • An overflow device for the first clean fluid to exit the tank.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but makes allegations as to "at least Claim 1" Compl. ¶45

U.S. Patent No. 11,326,406 - "Flow Back Separation System and Method"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,326,406, "Flow Back Separation System and Method," issued May 10, 2022.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same problem as the '953 Patent: efficiently separating solids from hydrocarbon well flowback fluids Compl. ¶23
• The Patented Solution: The '406 Patent discloses a system with a similar process flow to the '953 Patent but adds specific structural configurations. The solution specifies a tank with "sloping side walls" to aid solids settling and, critically, a "shaker operatively positioned underneath the one or more hydrocyclone units" '406 Patent, claim 1 This configuration leverages gravity to feed the solids-laden underflow from the hydrocyclones directly to the dewatering shaker '406 Patent, abstract '406 Patent, Fig. 1
• Technical Importance: The specific spatial arrangement of the hydrocyclones over the shaker aims to create a more compact and gravitationally efficient system design for dewatering separated solids Compl. ¶25 '406 Patent, abstract

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 Compl. ¶60
• Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
  • A tank with "sloping side walls."
  • One or more degassing units.
  • A conveying device on the bottom of the tank.
  • A pump to move a second slurry through a first conduit.
  • One or more hydrocyclone units to process the slurry into an overflow and underflow.
  • A shaker "operatively positioned underneath" the hydrocyclone units to receive the underflow and dewater the solids, producing a third slurry for recirculation into the tank.
  • A second conduit to return the clean fluid overflow to the tank.
  • An overflow device for the clean fluid to exit the tank.
• The complaint makes allegations as to "at least Claim 1" Compl. ¶60

U.S. Patent No. 10,751,654 - "Flow Back Separation System and Method"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,751,654, "Flow Back Separation System and Method," issued August 25, 2020.
• Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a flowback separation system featuring a "V-shaped compartment" with a "shaftless auger" and two distinct series of baffles to enhance solids settling at different stages. The system processes slurry through hydrocyclones and a "linear shaker" to separate solids and recirculate fluids '654 Patent, abstract '654 Patent, claim 1
• Asserted Claims: Claim 1 Compl. ¶75
• Accused Features: The "Hydrocyclone Accused System" is accused of infringing, with specific allegations against its V-shaped tank, baffles, shaftless auger, hydrocyclones, and linear shaker Compl. ¶¶78-88

U.S. Patent No. 11,040,300 - "Flow Back Separation System with Dispersing Device"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,040,300, "Flow Back Separation System with Dispersing Device," issued June 22, 2021.
• Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a system that utilizes a "dispersing device," such as a feedbox, which receives a slurry and discharges it onto a shaker for dewatering. Unlike the other asserted patents, this system's primary separation mechanism for dewatering relies on the shaker receiving slurry from the dispersing device, which "does not separate the first solids" itself '300 Patent, abstract '300 Patent, claim 1, element [5]
• Asserted Claims: Claim 1 Compl. ¶96
• Accused Features: The "Hercules Accused System" is accused of infringing, specifically its use of a "dispersing-device or feedbox-style component" that discharges slurry onto a shaker Compl. ¶¶35 Compl. ¶103

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint identifies two accused instrumentalities: the "Hydrocyclone Accused System" and the "Hercules" Sand Management Unit ("Hercules Accused System") Compl. ¶4

Functionality and Market Context

• The Hydrocyclone Accused System is described as a hydrocyclone-based flowback separation system used in oilfield operations (Compl. ¶¶4; Compl. ¶38). Photographs in the complaint depict a large, trailer-mounted system with visible tanks, piping, and separation equipment alleged to include a tank, degassing unit, auger, slurry pump, hydrocyclone units, and a shaker Compl. ¶39 Compl. Ex. E This system is accused of infringing the '953, '406, and '654 patents (collectively, the "Sandcat Patents") Compl. ¶6
• The Hercules Accused System is identified as a feedbox-based flowback separation system Compl. ¶4 Public materials allegedly show it includes a tank, degassing equipment, shaker equipment, and a "dispersing-device or feedbox-style component" (Compl. ¶35). This system is accused of infringing the '300 Patent Compl. ¶6
• Both are alleged to be competing systems that Defendant makes, uses, rents, sells, and deploys for flowback separation Compl. ¶¶4-5

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'953 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
A system for separating solids from a slurry recovered from a hydrocarbon well, comprising:	The Accused System is a system for separating solids from slurry recovered from hydrocarbon wells and is used in oilfield flowback operations.	¶47	col. 5:12-14
a tank having side walls, a bottom, and a top, the tank having a front section, a mid-section, and a rear section;	The Accused System includes a large, trailer-mounted tank with the specified sections.	¶48	col. 5:19-22
a degassing unit operatively associated with the tank, the degassing unit removing an entrained gas from the slurry and discharging a first slurry into the tank...	On information and belief, a gas buster removes entrained gas and discharges slurry into the tank.	¶49	col. 6:12-19
a conveying device operatively positioned within the tank, the conveying device configured to cause the first solids to move proximate to an inlet of a first conduit...	On information and belief, an auger is used to move settled solids along the tank bottom toward a pump intake.	¶50	col. 8:33-37
a pump in fluid communication with the first conduit, the pump configured to pump a second slurry containing the first solids through the first conduit;	On information and belief, external piping and processing equipment includes a pump to convey slurry from the tank to the hydrocyclone equipment.	¶51	col. 8:38-41
a hydrocyclone unit in fluid communication with an outlet of the first conduit, the hydrocyclone unit receiving and processing the second slurry to produce an overflow... and an underflow...	On information and belief, one or more hydrocyclone units receive and process the slurry to produce a clean fluid overflow and a solids-comprising underflow.	¶52	col. 6:41-47
a shaker operatively associated with the hydrocyclone unit... [and] configured for depositing the third slurry into the tank for recirculation...	On information and belief, a shaker receives the underflow, dewaters solids, and produces a third slurry that is deposited back into the tank for recirculation.	¶53	col. 8:47-61
a second conduit having an inlet and an outlet... to receive and provide a flow path for the overflow comprising the first clean fluid... for discharge... therein;	On information and belief, the system's visible piping supports the presence of conduits for routing hydrocyclone overflow back to the tank.	¶54	col. 8:62-69
an overflow device operatively positioned within the tank... configured to provide an outlet for the first clean fluid to exit the tank.	On information and belief, the flowback separation tank includes a fluid outlet for discharge of processed fluid.	¶55	col. 8:8-12

'406 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
a tank having sloping side walls, a bottom, and a top, the tank having a front section, a mid-section, and a rear section;	Photographs show an elongated tank body, and on information and belief, the tank includes sloping side walls to promote solids settling.	¶63	col. 5:29-32
one or more degassing units operatively associated with the tank...	On information and belief, a gas buster removes entrained gas from the slurry and discharges it into the tank.	¶64	col. 6:15-20
a conveying device operatively positioned on the bottom of the tank... to cause the first solids to move proximate to an inlet of a first conduit...	On information and belief, an auger is positioned along the tank bottom to move settled solids toward a conduit inlet.	¶65	col. 9:3-10
a shaker operatively positioned underneath the one or more hydrocyclone units, the shaker configured to receive the underflow...	On information and belief, a shaker is positioned underneath the hydrocyclone units, receives the underflow, and dewaters the solids for recirculation.	¶68	col. 7:6-15

Identified Points of Contention

• Evidentiary Questions: The majority of infringement allegations for both patents are made "upon information and belief" Compl. ¶¶49-55 Compl. ¶¶63-70 A central point of contention will be whether discovery uncovers factual evidence confirming that the "Hydrocyclone Accused System" operates exactly as alleged and embodies every claimed element, including the specific internal fluid paths for recirculation.
• Technical Questions: For the '406 Patent, a key factual question will be the precise spatial relationship between the hydrocyclones and the shaker. The claim requires the shaker to be "operatively positioned underneath" the hydrocyclones Compl. ¶61 The dispute may focus on whether this requires direct vertical alignment or allows for a more general "lower-than" configuration. For the '953 Patent, a key technical question will be whether the accused system's shaker actually produces and recirculates a "third slurry" back into the tank as specifically required by element [6] of Claim 1 Compl. ¶46

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

'953 Patent: "recirculation through the first conduit to the hydrocyclone unit"

• The Term: "recirculation through the first conduit to the hydrocyclone unit"
• Context and Importance: This term, part of the shaker limitation in Claim 1, defines a specific fluid path for a "third slurry" generated by the shaker. Practitioners may focus on this term because infringement requires not just the presence of a shaker, but proof that it is part of this specific, closed-loop recirculation process. The viability of the infringement claim hinges on demonstrating that the accused system's fluid dynamics match this claimed path.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not specify the exact mechanism of depositing the slurry for recirculation. An argument for a broader reading could suggest that any process where the shaker's underflow re-enters the main tank and is eventually pumped back to the hydrocyclone meets this limitation.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's abstract describes a highly integrated process '953 Patent, abstract Figure 8 of the related '654 patent, which the '953 patent family relies on, shows a direct and intentional path for the shaker underflow (122) to be recycled back to the pump (66) that feeds the hydrocyclones. This could support a narrower construction requiring a dedicated and direct path for the "third slurry" to be reintroduced for pumping.

'406 Patent: "operatively positioned underneath the one or more hydrocyclone units"

• The Term: "operatively positioned underneath the one or more hydrocyclone units"
• Context and Importance: This phrase in Claim 1 defines the spatial and functional relationship between the shaker and the hydrocyclones. Its construction is critical because it is a key structural differentiator of the '406 patent. The infringement analysis will turn on whether the physical arrangement of the accused system falls within the scope of this term.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that "operatively positioned" implies a functional, gravity-fed relationship rather than strict physical alignment. "Underneath" could be interpreted broadly to mean at any lower elevation that allows the underflow to be received, not necessarily directly within the vertical footprint of the hydrocyclones.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The common meaning of "underneath" suggests a direct vertical relationship. The abstract states the hydrocyclones are "mounted over a linear shaker" '406 Patent, abstract Furthermore, Figure 1 of the patent depicts the hydrocyclones (58) located vertically above the linear shaker (64), which could be used to argue that the inventor intended a narrow, spatially aligned configuration.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges active inducement by accusing Texas J&A of encouraging and instructing customers and operators on how to use the Accused Systems in an infringing manner through operating manuals, training, on-site personnel, and other specifications Compl. ¶111 It also alleges contributory infringement, stating that the components provided are material to the inventions, not staple articles of commerce, and are known by Defendant to be especially adapted for infringement Compl. ¶113
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness allegations are based on both pre-suit and post-suit knowledge. For the '300 Patent, the complaint alleges pre-suit knowledge based on a written notice sent on June 11, 2025 Compl. ¶94 Compl. ¶115 For the '953, '406, and '654 "Sandcat" patents, the complaint alleges knowledge as of November 14, 2025, from correspondence with counsel, as well as knowledge upon service of the complaint Compl. ¶41 Compl. ¶58 Compl. ¶73 Compl. ¶91 Compl. ¶118

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

1. An Evidentiary Question of Operation: As the core infringement allegations are based on "information and belief," a central issue for the court will be a factual one: does discovery confirm that the accused systems operate precisely as claimed? This will require a granular, evidence-based comparison of the actual structure and fluid dynamics of the "Hydrocyclone Accused System" and "Hercules Accused System" against the detailed limitations of the asserted claims.
2. A Question of Technological Distinction: The lawsuit asserts two different proprietary technologies-one using hydrocyclones ('953, '406, '654 patents) and one using a "dispersing device" ('300 patent)-against two distinct accused products. A key question is whether Defendant's "Hercules" system, with its alleged "feedbox-style component," is merely an implementation of the '300 patent's claimed "dispersing device" or a technologically distinct, non-infringing alternative.
3. A Question of Structural and Spatial Scope: The asserted claims recite specific structural arrangements, such as a "V-shaped compartment" ('654 Patent), a "shaker operatively positioned underneath" a hydrocyclone ('406 Patent), and specific slurry recirculation paths ('953 Patent). The case will likely hinge on the construction of these terms and whether the accused systems, which are large-scale industrial machinery, meet these precise spatial and structural requirements.