Transocean Offshore Deepwater v. Globalsantafe, Civ.A. H-03-2910.
Citation | 443 F.Supp.2d 836 |
Decision Date | 07 August 2006 |
Docket Number | No. Civ.A. H-03-2910.,Civ.A. H-03-2910. |
Parties | TRANSOCEAN OFFSHORE DEEPWATER DRILLING, INC., Plaintiff, v. GLOBALSANTAFE CORP., Global Marine, Inc., Global Santa Fe Drilling Co., and Global Marine Drilling Co., Defendants. |
Court | United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Southern District of Texas |
Charles Bruce Walker, Jr., Fulbright & Jaworski, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff.
William Charles Slusser, Michael G. Locklar, Slusser Wilson et al., Richard Austin Schwartz, Schwartz Junell et al., Houston, TX, for Defendants.
Plaintiff, Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc., (Transocean), brings this action against defendants, GlobalSantaFe Corp., Global Marine, Inc., Global Santa Fe Drilling Co., and Global Marine Drilling Co. (collectively, "GSF"), for direct infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,047,781 ('781 Patent), U.S. Patent No. 6,056,071 ('071 Patent), U.S. Patent No. 6,068,069 ('069 Patent), and U.S. Patent No. 6,085,-851 ('851 Patent; collectively, "the patents-in-suit"). GSF asserts counterclaims for declaratory judgment of noninfringement, patent invalidity, and/or unenforceability for each of the patents-in-suit. Pending before the court are five motions: (1) GSF's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding Conception Date (Docket Entry No. 89), (2) GSF's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of Invalidity of Apparatus Claims (Docket Entry No. 93), (3) Plaintiff Transocean's Response to and Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Concerning Conception (Docket Entry Nos. 96 and 97), (4) Plaintiff Transocean's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment that Transocean's Invention was Not Derived from either Maritime Hydraulics' Twin Ram Rig or Maritime Engineering's ME 5500 Brochure (Docket Entry No. 106), and (5) Plaintiff Transocean's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Prior Art (Docket Entry No. 108). For the reasons explained below the pending motions will be granted in part and denied in part.
Transocean seeks judgment that GSF's Development Driller I and II (DD I and DD II) infringe the patents-in-suit. The court has already held that Transocean is entitled to summary judgment on its apparatus claims. GSF seeks declaratory judgment that the asserted claims are invalid because they were anticipated, derived, or obvious from the prior art or, in the alternative, that they are unenforceable due to Transocean's inequitable conduct during the patent prosecution.
Transocean is the assignee of the four patents-in-suit, each of which is for a Multi-Activity Offshore Exploration and/or Development Drilling Method and Apparatus.1 This action centers around a bid that GSF submitted to British Petroleum Amoco (BP) for a development project in the Gulf of Mexico and a development contract awarded to GSF in October of 2004 by BHP Billiton Petroleum (Americas) Inc. (BHP). Transocean alleges that GSF's BP bid was for a dual activity structure, the DD II, and a method for conducting dual activity operations that infringe the patents-in-suit,2 and that a contract awarded to GSF by BHP was for a dual activity structure, the DD I, and a method for conducting dual activity operations that infringe the patents-in-suit.3
On April 5, 2005, the court construed the terms
"single well," "a well," and "the well" to mean "expressly limited to dual drilling stations conducting operations on a single well or methods for conducting simultaneous operations from dual drilling stations on a single well;" the terms "transfer," "transferring," "transfer means" to mean "direct transfers, intermediate transfers, and combinations thereof;" the term "advancing" to mean "lowering and raising tubular members," the term "advancing means" to mean "equipment used to raise and lower pipe," and the term "tubular advancing station" to mean "a location on a drilling Nor or drilling deck where tubular members are advanced to or into the seabed;" the terms "operations auxiliary to drilling operations" and "auxiliary drilling activity" to have the same meaning, i.e., "operations related to drilling a well and progressing that well toward production but not directly involved in physically advancing or expanding the wellbore;" the terms "simultaneous" and "simultaneously" to mean overlapping in time; and the term "one of ordinary skill in the art" to be one who "has a bachelor's degree in a pertinent engineering discipline, such as petroleum engineering or mechanical engineering, and ten years' experience in petroleum drilling, at least half of which is offshore experience."4
On November 29, 2005, the court entered a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in part Transocean's motion for partial summary judgment (Docket Entry No. 84). Since GSF did not dispute Transocean's assertion that its DD I and DD II rigs contain each of the structural elements described in apparatus claims 10-12 of the '781 patent, claims 9, 14-16, and 27-29 of the '071 patent, and claim 17 of the '069 patent, and since GSF failed to submit any evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that the rigs' means for transferring pipe between the two drill centers does not facilitate simultaneous drilling operations and auxiliary drilling operations on a single well, the court granted Transocean summary judgment on its claims that GSF's rigs infringed apparatus claims 10-12 of the '781 patent, claims 9, 14-16, and 27-29 of the '071 patent, and claim 17 of the '069 patent. Since, however, Transocean failed to persuade the court that 35 U.S.C. § 271(a)'s prohibition against "offers to sell" encompasses offers to perform an infringing method, and failed to submit evidence that GSF has used or practiced the allegedly infringing methods, the court denied Transocean summary judgment on its method claims.
In response to GSF's pending motions Transocean states that it is now asserting...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
EMC Corp. v. Pure Storage, Inc.
...corroborative value" because they did "not provide an ‘independent’ source of authority"); Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. v. GlobalSantaFe Corp. , 443 F.Supp.2d 836, 856 (S.D.Tex.2006) (holding that an inventor's testimony that he made electronic drawings of an invention befor......
-
Adaptix, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 5:13-cv-01776-PSG
...inventors] at the September meeting [was] supported by circumstantial evidence."); Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. v. Global Santa Fe Corp., 443 F. Supp. 2d 836, 863-64 (S.D. Tex. 2006) (denying motion for summary judgment of no invalidity of derivation on the grounds of commun......