News
Contributors
MARSHALL, TEXAS—Once again, DynaEnergetics U.S., Inc. has successfully defended itself against an assertion of intellectual property infringement in federal court. And once again, a Womble Bond Dickinson team counseled DynaEnergetics in this victory.
This particular case involved rival GEODynamics alleging patent infringement of US Patent No. 8,220,394, based on DynaEnergetics’ sales of its DPEX [®] and HaloFrac [®] shaped charges used in in oil and gas well perforations. On Oct. 10, after a five-day trial, a jury returned with a full defense verdict, finding that all of the asserted claims of GEODynamics’ patent were both not infringed and invalid.
A Womble Bond Dickinson team led by Barry Herman and including attorneys Preston Heard, Christy Dupriest, Will Hubbard, David Boaz, and paralegal Julie Giardina represented DynaEnergetics in this case. Research analyst Kathryn Karacia provided trial graphics support. Lisa Moyles, who has long represented DynaEnergetics in intellectual property matters, was vital to the victory, along with Jason Rockman, also of Moyles IP. In addition, Eric Findlay and Walter Lackey of Findlay Craft were key contributors at trial.
In a statement, DynaEnergetics President Ian Grieves said, “I am delighted with the representation by our legal team. The attorneys from Womble Bond Dickinson, Moyles IP, and Findlay Craft worked together seamlessly, and their experience and guidance was crucial to the victory. Our commercial success is the result of developing and protecting our own intellectual property, while respecting the IP of others. We view this ruling as a clear validation of our strategy.” Click here to read DynaEnergetics’ press release on the case.
This is the fifth time in less than two years that DynaEnergetics and the Womble Bond Dickinson team has prevailed in this long-running dispute with GEODynamics.
- March 2017: After a four-day trial, an Eastern District of Texas jury found in favor of DynaEnergetics and two co-defendants on all patent infringement claims. The jury also found that every asserted claim of the U.S. Patent No. 9,080,431 was invalid.
- April 2017: A federal judge in the Eastern District of Texas sided with DynaEnergetics and canceled a trademark held by GEODynamics.
- December 2017: The Court granted DynaEnergetics’ request for attorneys’ fees and expenses stemming from the trademark dispute.
- March 2018: The USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board ruled in DynaEnergetics’ favor in an inter partes review (IPR), finding that the claims of GEODynamics’ U.S. Patent No. 8,544,563 were unpatentable. The ruling invalidates all claims challenged by DynaEnergetics, including all claims asserted in parallel district court litigation.
Barry Herman is an intellectual property litigation partner working in Baltimore. He represents both domestic and foreign clients in a wide range of intellectual property matters, with an emphasis on patent litigation in district courts, the International Trade Commission, and the USPTO.
Preston Heard is an intellectual property litigation partner who has represented clients in U.S. District Court in numerous states, as well as before the International Trade Commission, and before the PTAB in post-grant proceedings. His practice is focused primarily on patent litigation and covers a broad range of technologies, from oil and gas well drilling and recovery to computer networks to carpet tufting machines.
Christy Dupriest is an intellectual property litigation partner working in Atlanta. She represents clients in a wide range of industries, including manufacturers and distributors of software, chemical, medical device and packaging products. With experience in both U.S. District Court actions as well as before the PTAB, she works with patent owners to devise strategies to protect and enforce patent rights and to assess potential patent-related claims.
Will Hubbard advises clients on patent issues involving diverse technologies and represents clients in trademark and antitrust litigation. He also serves as a Professor of Law at the University of Baltimore Law School.
David Boaz focuses his practice on guiding clients through patent, trademark, and copyright disputes. His IP litigation experience includes representing clients in the apparel design and manufacturing, thermal insulation tubing, firearm mechanisms, carpet tufting machinery, polymers, multi-platform connectivity software, bank payment processing automation, automotive diagnostics, computer gaming and sweepstakes software, food packaging, and agrochemical products industries.
