Top-Co v Summit Complaint

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

HOUSTON DIVISION

TOP-CO INC. and TOP-CO CEMENTING §

PRODUCTS INC. §

§

Plaintiff, § CIVIL ACTION NO. _________

§

vs. §

§

SUMMIT ENERGY SERVICES, INC. d/b/a §

SUMMIT CASING EQUIPMENT §

§ JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Defendant. §

ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs TOP-CO INC. and TOP-CO CEMENTING PRODUCTS INC. (collectively

“Top-Co”) hereby file this Original Complaint against Defendant SUMMIT ENERGY

SERVICES, INC. d/b/a SUMMIT CASING EQUIPMENT for patent infringement, trademark

infringement, unfair competition and tortious interference with business relations as set forth

below.

I. PARTIES

1. Top-Co Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of Canada, with its

principal place of business in 7720 17 Street, Edmonton, Alberta Y6P 1S7.

2. Top-Co Cementing Products Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of the

State of Texas with its principal place of business located at 3443 N. Sam Houston Parkway

West, Suite 200, Houston, Texas 77086.

3. On information and belief, Defendant Summit Energy Services d/b/a Summit

Casing Equipment (“Summit”) is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of

Oklahoma, with its principal place of business located at 6656 Corporation Parkway, Fort Worth,

Case 4:13-cv-00445 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 02/19/13 Page 1 of 11

Texas 76126. Summit may be served through its registered agent Andy Eldridge, 128 Century

Drive, Cleburne, Texas 76033.

II. NATURE OF THIS ACTION

4. This is an action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the

United States, particularly 35 U.S.C. §§ 271-287, trademark infringement under the Lanham Act,

15 U.S.C. §1125(a), as well as for trademark infringement under Texas State Law and other

ancillary claims arising out of the same case or controversy.

III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

5. This Court has exclusive subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 28

U.S.C. § 1338(a) and (b) and supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

6. Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction by virtue of its contacts with the

State of Texas, and with the Southern District of Texas in particular. Defendant is voluntarily

conducting business in this district.

7. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and 1400(b).

IV. FACTS

8. On July 31, 2012, U.S. Design Patent No. D664,568 (“the ‘568 patent”) was duly

and legally issued by the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (“PTO”) to inventors Gregory Andrigo

and Alfredo Sanchez for an ornamental design relating to a casing centralizer. A true and correct

copy of the ‘568 is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The ‘568 patent is presumed valid pursuant to

35 U.S.C § 282.


9. Pursuant to their employment agreements, Messrs. Andrigo and Sanchez assigned

all right, title and interest to the ‘568 patent to Top-Co. A true and correct copy of the

assignment is attached hereto as Exhibit B.

10. The ‘568 patent is currently in full force and effect.

11. No other company is licensed to make, use or sell products that are covered by the

‘568 patent.

12. Top-Co makes, offers for sale and sells its Type 346 Top Reach Glider™

composite centralizer covered by the design of the ‘568 patent. Top-Co’s Top Reach Glider™

composite centralizer has been very successful in the marketplace since introduction in 2009.

Since that time, Top-Co has sold over 280,000 Top Reach Glider™ composite centralizers that

incorporate the patented design.

13. Top-Co invested a considerable amount of time and money into the design and

development of its Top Reach Glider™ composite centralizer.

14. Top-Co advertises its Top Reach Glider™ composite centralizer on its web site,

in brochures and through other marketing means common in the industry.

15. Since about December 2010, Top-Co has continuously used its Top Reach

Glider™ trademark in commerce in association with its centralizer throughout the United States,

Canada and abroad. Top-Co uses its Top Reach Glider™ trademark on its product packaging,

point-of-sale materials, web site and in its brochures, flyers and other marketing materials

distributed to customers and others in the industry.

16. In about September 2011, Summit became a distributor for Top-Co, selling Top-

Co products to Top-Co’s customers in the industry. In its role as distributor, Summit represented

Top-Co in the marketplace and offered for sale and sold, on behalf of Top-Co, Top Reach


Glider™ centralizers covered by the ‘568 patent for use in oil well projects with various

customers of Top-Co.

17. As a Top-Co distributor, Summit was given and had access to internal business,

confidential and other information belonging to Top-Co, including but not limited to Top-Co’s

customer lists, contacts and information; drawings, specifications, designs, and other

development information related to Top-Co’s Top Reach Glider™ composite centralizer;

advertising and marketing materials developed by Top-Co for its Top Reach Glider™ composite

centralizer; pricing strategy for Top-Co’s Top Reach Glider™ composite centralizer; and internal

sales information related to Top-Co’s Top Reach Glider™ composite centralizer.

18. As a distributor of Top-Co, Summit offered for sale and sold Top-Co’s composite

centralizers using Top-Co’s Top Reach Glider™ trademark.

19. On information and belief, without termination of its relationship with Top-Co or

notice that it would no longer be representing Top-Co in the marketplace, in July 2012 Summit

began manufacturing, offering for sale and selling a composite centralizer that infringes the ‘568

patent. On information and belief, Summit calls its infringing product the TorqGlider Composite

Centralizer. A copy of Summit’s literature advertising its TorqGlider centralizer is attached

hereto as Exhibit C.

20. On information and belief, Summit has made, used, sold, and/or offered for sale

and are currently making, using, offering for sale and/or selling, TorqGlider Composite

Centralizers that infringe the ‘568 patent.

21. On information and belief, Summit has used Top-Co’s internal information,

including but not limited to, Top-Co’s drawings, specifications, designs, and other development

information related to Top-Co’s Top Reach Glider™ centralizer to copy Top-Co’s Top Reach


Glider™.

22. On information and belief, Summit has used Top-Co’s internal information,

including but not limited to, Top-Co’s pricing strategy, customer lists, contacts and customer

information to target customers of Top-Co’s Top Reach Glider™ composite centralizer in order

to divert sales from Top-Co.

23. On information and belief, Summit has used Top-Co’s internal sales and pricing

information related to Top-Co’s Top Reach Glider™ composite centralizer in order to divert

sales from Top-Co.

24. On information and belief, Summit has, in fact, diverted sales from Top-Co.

25. In connection with the sales of its infringing composite centralizer, Summit is

using the TorqGlider mark which is confusingly similar to Top-Co’s Top Reach Glider™ mark.

26. Summit’s use of the TorqGlider mark, in fact, makes Summit’s composite

centralizer appear to be associated with Top-Co’s composite centralizer.

27. Particularly since Summit was a distributer for Top-Co, there has been actual

confusion in the marketplace about which product customers have purchased and are using. As a

result, actual confusion has occurred and will continue to occur in the marketplace.

28. The natural, probable and foreseeable result of Summit’s wrongful conduct has

been and will continue to be to deprive Top-Co of the benefits of using its mark, to deprive Top-

Co of goodwill, and to injure Top-Co’s relations with present and prospective customers.

29. Top-Co is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that it will sustain

damages as a result of Summit’s wrongful conduct. Summit’s wrongful conduct has also

deprived and will continue to deprive Top-Co of opportunities for expanding its goodwill.

30. Top-Co is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that unless enjoined


by this Court, Summit intends to continue its course of conduct and wrongfully use, infringe

upon, and otherwise profit from Top-Co’s patented design, confidential information and

trademark. As a direct and proximate result of the acts of Summit alleged above, Top-Co is

informed and believes that it has already suffered irreparable damage.

31. Top-Co has no adequate remedy at law to redress all of the injuries that Summit

has caused and intends to cause by its conduct. Top-Co will continue to suffer irreparable harm

to its business, sustain damages, and see Summit gain unlawful profits until Summit’s actions

alleged above are enjoined by this Court.

V. CAUSES OF ACTION –

PATENT INFRINGEMENT

32. The above and foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference.

33. Summit is making, using, offering for sale and/or selling products within this

district that infringe the ‘568 patent design without authority or license from Top-Co.

34. Upon information and belief, Summit’s infringing activities have been willful and

deliberate.

35. As a result of Summit’s infringing activities, Top-Co has suffered actual damage

in an amount to be determined at trial. Additionally, as a result of the willful and deliberate

nature of Summit’s infringement, Top-Co is entitled to trebling of its actual damages and is

entitled to recover its attorney’s fees and costs incurred in prosecuting this action. See 35 U.S.C.

§§ 284-285.

36. Summit’s acts of infringement have caused irreparable harm to Top-Co for which

there is no adequate remedy at law, and will continue to cause irreparable harm to Top-Co unless

Summit is preliminarily and permanently enjoined by this Court.


TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT


38. Top-Co has marketed its composite centralizer under the trademark Top Reach

Glider™ since at least December 2010. Top-Co’s mark is suggestive and was developed

specifically for Top-Co’s composite centralizer which allows for low drag centralization of

casing, hence use of the “Glider” mark.

39. Top-Co has continuously used the trademark Top Reach Glider™ since 2010.

40. Summit has begun offering a composite centralizer identical to Top-Co’s Top

Reach Glider™ composite centralizer. Summit is marketing and selling that composite

centralizer bearing the mark TorqGlider which is substantially and confusingly similar to Top-

Co’s mark.

41. The use of this confusingly similar mark by Summit has caused and will continue

to cause consumers to be confused as to the source of Summit’s composite centralizer.

42. By virtue of Summit’s conduct, there has been and will continue to be confusion

between Top-Co’s and Summit’s composite centralizers and the source of the centralizers.

Summit’s conduct constitutes infringement of Top-Co’s trademark under the Lanham Act, which

has damaged Top-Co.

43. In addition, Summit has advertised on its web site and distributed marketing

materials in which it makes false and misleading claims and provides false and misleading

descriptions, characteristics, and qualities related to its TorqGlider composite centralizer in

violation of the Lanham Act.

44. The unauthorized and infringing use by Summit of Top-Co’s trademark and of a


confusingly similar mark, as well as its false and misleading claims and descriptions used by

Summit on its web site and in its marketing materials, unless enjoined, will cause irreparable

harm, damage and injury to Top-Co’s goodwill in its mark and product.

45. Summit’s misleading acts and acts of infringement are willful and deliberate and,

as a result, damages should be trebled and Top-Co should be awarded its attorney’s fees and

costs incurred in prosecuting this action.

46. Top-Co has been and will continue to be irreparably harmed, damaged and

injured as a result of Summit’s conduct in an amount to be determined at trial. In addition,

Summit has unlawfully and wrongfully derived and will continue to derive income and profits

from its infringing conduct.

UNFAIR COMPETITION


48. Summit, by virtue of the fact that it has marketed, advertised, used, and offered to

consumers products infringing upon Top-Co’s patented design and trademark, and has used false

and misleading descriptions in its advertising and marketing materials, has engaged and

continues to engage in unfair competition against Top-Co.

49. Such conduct includes, but is not limited to, surreptitiously raiding Top-Co’s

customer base and established goodwill, wrongful deception of the consuming public, wrongful

designation as to the source, sponsorship and origin of goods and/or services, wrongful

deprivation of Top-Co’s good name and reputation, and wrongful deprivation of Top-Co’s right

to public recognition and credit as to true source of composite centralizers.

50. Summit has been marketing, advertising, and offering a composite centralizer


under the disputed mark and patented design resulting in consumer confusion as to the source of

the products. Such conduct constitutes unfair trade practice and unfair competition under the

Lanham Act and under state and common law.

51. Summit has been unjustly enriched through unfair competition and has caused

Top-Co actual damage. Summit continues to unfairly compete with Top-Co and Top-Co is

entitled to actual and punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial.

TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS RELATIONS


53. As a result of Summit’s deceptive and confusing conduct in offering the

TorqGlider composite centralizer, as well as use of Top-Co’s customer, internal business,

confidential and other information obtained by Summit as a result of its distributer relationship

with Top-Co, Summit has entered into business relations and obtained business contacts that

would otherwise have been entered into and obtained by Top-Co.

54. Summit’s acts of deceptively marketing, advertising and selling its TorqGlider

composite centralizer has prevented Top-Co from entering into business relationships with

previous Top-Co customers as well as with potential customers in the industry.

55. Summit’s acts were purposeful and directed at preventing customers from

entering into a business relationship with and purchasing composite centralizers from Top-Co,

thereby diverting business relations from Top-Co to Summit.

56. Top-Co has suffered actual damage to reputation, goodwill, and sales to Top-Co

as a result of Summit’s deceptive acts.

57. Top-Co is entitled to damages in an amount to be determined at trial.


VI. JURY DEMAND

58. Trial by jury is demanded on all issues so triable.

VII. PRAYER

WHEREFORE Top-Co respectfully prays that this Court enter judgment against Summit,

thereby granting Top-Co the following relief:

a. a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Defendant, its affiliates, officers,

agents, employees, servants and all persons in active concert or participation with

them, individually and collectively, from continuing to infringe the ‘568 patent;

b. a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Defendant, its affiliates, officers,

agents, employees, servants and all persons in active concert or participation with

them, individually and collectively, from continuing to infringe Top-Co’s trademark;

c. an equitable accounting from Defendant for any and all sales and/or profits or other

benefit derived from Defendant’s actions, infringement and other unlawful acts;

d. an award of damages adequate to compensate Top-Co for Defendant’s infringement

of the ‘568 patent;

e. an award of damages adequate to compensate Top-Co for Defendant’s infringement

of Top-Co’s trademark, unfair competition, and tortious interference with prospective

business relations, including actual and compensatory damages, lost profits, loss of

business reputation, costs in bringing this action, costs of corrective advertising,

together with interest and costs;

f. a determination that Defendant’s patent and trademark infringement have been willful

and deliberate;


g. a determination that this case is “exceptional” under 35 U.S.C. § 285, thereby

entitling Top-Co to an award of its reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred in

prosecuting this action;

h. an award of treble damages based on the willful and deliberate nature of Defendant’s

infringement;

i. an accounting of damages resulting from Defendant’s infringement of the’568 patent;

j. an award of punitive damages in an amount necessary to punish Defendants and deter

such conduct in the future;

k. pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on all damages computed; and

l. such other a further relief as the Court deems appropriate.

Respectfully submitted,

DRY & TASSIN, P.L.L.C.

By: /s/ Kristin K. Tassin

Kristin K. Tassin

Attorney-In-Charge

Federal Bar No. 20522

State Bar No. 00797539

P.O. Box 421479

Houston, Texas 77242-1479

Telephone: (713) 223-0500

Facsimile: (713) 583-1064

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

TOP-CO INC. and TOP-CO CEMENTING

PRODUCTS INC.


Case 4:13-cv-00445 Document 1-1 Filed in TXSD on 02/19/13 Page 1 of 12111111 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

c12) United States Design Patent Andrigo et al.

(54) CASING CENTRALIZER

(75) Inventors: Gregory Andrigo, Almonte (CA); Alfredo Sanchez, Tomball, TX (US)

(73) Assignee: Top-Co Cementing Products, Inc., Weatherford, TX (US)

(**) Term: 14 Years

(21) Appl. No.: 29/405,113

(22) Filed: Oct. 28, 2011

(51) LOC (9) Cl. .................................................. 15-03 (52) U.S. Cl. ........................................................ Dl5/21 (58) Field of Classification Search .... ...... ......... D 15/10,

D15/21; 166/384,241.1-241.7,213, 173, 166/208, 382; 175/325.5,325.1, 325.2, 325.3;

138/108, 112; 228/155; 72/393 See application file for complete search history.

(56) References Cited

U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS

1,460,632 A * 7/1923 Wigle et al. 166/241.6 1,767,198 A 6/1930 Baker 1,807,050 A * 5/1931 Stolz . 166/285 2,166,116 A 7/1939 Bettis 2,602,512 A 7/1952 Baker 2,659,439 A * 1111953 Baker 166/241.6 2,715,552 A * 8/1955 Lane . 175/325.5 2,943,009 A 6/1960 Mirsky eta!. 3,080,926 A * 3/1963 Remp, Jr. 166/241.6 3,125,382 A 3/1964 Herndon eta!. 3,128,827 A 4/1964 Kluck 3,292,708 A 12/1966 Mundt 3,320,004 A 5/1967 Garrett 3,410,613 A 1111968 Kuus 3,528,499 A 9/1970 Collett 3,613,783 A 10/1971 Seabourn 3,762,472 A 10/1973 Alexander, Jr. 3,933,203 A 111976 Evans 3,955,625 A 5/1976 Hughes eta!. 3,963,075 A 6/1976 Evans 4,050,514 A 9/1977 Prenn 4,088,185 A 5/1978 Carson 4,146,060 A 3/1979 Garrett 4,275,935 A * 6/1981 Thompson et a!. 175/325.7

USOOD664568S

(10) Patent No.: (45) Date of Patent:

4,372,562 A 2/1983 4,396,234 A * 8/1983 4,436,118 A 3/1984 4,595,058 A 6/1986 4,658,896 A 4/1987 4,757,861 A 7/1988 4,796,670 A 111989 4,825,947 A 5/1989 4,858,688 A 8/1989 4,919,202 A 4/1990 4,938,299 A 7/1990 4,984,633 A * 111991 5,095,981 A * 3/1992 5,115,863 A 5/1992 5,179,140 A 111993 5,191,938 A 3/1993 5,247,990 A * 9/1993 5,277,254 A 111994 5,332,049 A 7/1994 5,339,896 A 8/1994 5,492,174 A 2/1996 3,289,767 A 12/1997 5,692,562 A 12/1997 5,697,442 A 12/1997 5,797,455 A * 8/1998 5,860,760 A * 111999 5,908,072 A * 6/1999 5,937,948 A * 8/1999 6,006,830 A * 12/1999 6,435,275 B1 * 8/2002 6,439,304 B2 8/2002 6,585,052 B2 * 7/2003 6,659,173 B2 * 12/2003 6,666,267 B1 * 12/2003 6,830,102 B2 * 12/2004 6,845,816 B2 * 1/2005 7,082,997 B2 8/2006 7,096,939 B2 * 8/2006 7,159,668 B2 * 1/2007 7,357,178 B2 * 4/2008 7,409,758 B2 * 8/2008 7,604,059 B2 * 10/2009 7,694,733 B2 * 4/2010 7,814,633 B2 * 10/2010

200110032722 A1 * 10/2001 2002/0023749 A1 * 212002 2003/0164236 A1 * 9/2003 2006/0070731 A1 * 4/2006 2008/0164019 A1 * 7/2008 2010/0059218 A1 * 3/2010

US D664,568 S ** Jul. 31, 2012

Carter, Jr. Garrett . 175/325.2 Garrett Nations Milam Klyne Russell et al. Mikolajczyk Edwards et al. Clint berg Jelsma Langer eta!. 166/241.1 Mikolajczyk . 166/241.6 Olinger Ariannejad Sable eta!. Sudol eta!. 166/241.3 Rullman eta!. Tew Hart et al. O'Hair Seward eta!. Squires Baldridge Barron eta!. 166/241.6 Kirk .............................. 403/371 Hawkins. 166/241.6 Robbins, III . 166/380 Barron eta!. 166/241.6 Kirk et al. 166/241.1 Eaton Angman eta!. 166/380 Kirk et al. 166/242.8 Charlton . 166/241.6 Kirk et al. 166/241.6 Kirk et al. 166/241.6 Slack Kirk et al. 166/241.6 Herrera . 166/381 Thornton 166/241.6 Le et al. ....................... 29/421.1 Thornton 166/381 Clark eta!. 166/244.1 Slack ........................... 29/421.1 Eaton . 166/241.4 Kirk et al. 166/241.1 Thornton 166/278 Fouillou et a!. 166/241.4 Angman 166/241.6 Whitelaw. 166/241.1

Case 4:13-cv-00445 Document 1-1 Filed in TXSD on 02/19/13 Page 2 of 12

US D664,568 S Page 2

CA CA EP EP EP EP GB GB GB GB GB GB GB GB GB GB GB GB wo wo wo wo wo wo

FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS

1032867 1154380 0138603 0297716

333450 0671546

682362 2016063 2171436 2226520 2233690 2249333 2275284 2282615 2285649 2288198 2304753 2329209

wo 91105936 wo 95/10685 wo 95/21986 wo 96/34173 wo 98/37302 wo 99/25949

6/1978 9/1983 4/1985 111989 9/1989 9/1995

1111952 9/1979 8/1986 7/1990 111991 5/1992 8/1994 4/1995 7/1995

10/1995 3/1997 2/1998 5/1991 4/1995 8/1995

10/1996 8/1998 5/1999

OTHER PUBLICATIONS

U.S. Appl. No. 29/405,117, filed Oct. 28, 2011, Andrigo eta!. U.S. Appl. No. 29/405,121, filed Oct. 28,2011, Andrigo eta!. U.S. Appl. No. 29/405,122, filed Oct. 28, 2011, Andrigo eta!. U.S. Appl. No. 29/405,124, filed Oct. 28, 2011, Andrigo eta!. U.S. Appl. No. 29/405,130, filed Oct. 28, 2011, Andrigo eta!. U.S. Appl. No. 29/405,133, filed Oct. 28, 2011, Andrigo eta!. TOP-CO Tech News, "Primary Cementing Process and Application of Casing Accessories," vol. 1, Issue 2, Dec. 2009, 2 pages. TOP-CO Type 346 Stand OffBand-Phenolizer, May 1, 2009. Nicholson eta!., Geothermal-Well Completions: A Survey and Technical Evaluation of Existing Equipment and Needs, Jul. 1982, pp. 3-1 through 3-41. Office Action mailed Feb. 29, 2012 by the USPTO regarding U.S. Appl. No. 29/405,117. Notice of Allowance mailed Feb. 27, 2012 by the USPTO regarding U.S. Appl. No. 29/405,121. Office Action mailed Feb. 29, 2012 by the USPTO regarding U.S. Appl. No. 29/405,124. Notice of Allowance mailed Feb. 27, 2012 by the USPTO regarding U.S. Appl. No. 29/405,133.

* cited by examiner

Primary Examiner- Mark Goodwin (74) Attorney, Agent, or Firm- Haynes and Boone, LLP

(57) CLAIM The ornamental design for a casing centralizer, as shown and described.

DESCRIPTION

This application is related to (1) U.S. Design application Ser. No. 29/405,117, filed Oct. 28, 2011; (2) U.S. Design application Ser. No. 29/405,121, filed Oct. 28, 2011; (3) U.S. Design application Ser. No. 29/405,122, filed Oct. 28, 2011;

(4) U.S. Design application Ser. No. 29/405,124, filed Oct. 28,2011; (5) U.S. Design application Ser. No. 29/405,130, filed Oct. 28, 2011; (6) U.S. Design application Ser. No. 29/405,133, filed Oct. 28, 2011, the entire disclosures of which are incorporated herein by reference. FIG. 1 is a perspective view of a casing centralizer showing our new design according to a first embodiment; FIG. 2 is an elevational view of the first embodiment; FIG. 3 is a top plan view of the first embodiment, the bottom plan view of the first embodiment being identical to the top plan view of the first embodiment; FIG. 4 is a sectional view of the first embodiment taken along line 4-4 of FIG. 3; FIG. 5 is an elevational view of the casing centralizer according to a second embodiment, the second embodiment being identical to the first embodiment except that the second embodiment has one indeterminate length as indicated in FIG. 5;

FIG. 6 is a top plan view of the casing centralizer according to a third embodiment, the third embodiment being identical to the first embodiment except that the third embodiment has five indeterminate lengths as indicated in FIG. 6;

FIG. 7 is a perspective view of a casing centralizer showing our new design according to a fourth embodiment; FIG. 8 is an elevational view of the fourth embodiment; FIG. 9 is a top plan view of the fourth embodiment, the bottom plan view of the fourth embodiment being identical to the top plan view of the fourth embodiment; FIG. 10 is a sectional view of the fourth embodiment taken along line 10-10 of FIG. 9; FIG. 11 is an elevational view of the casing centralizer according to a fifth embodiment, the fifth embodiment being identical to the fourth embodiment except that the fifth embodiment has one indeterminate length as indicated in FIG.ll; FIG. 12 is a perspective view of a casing centralizer showing our new design according to a sixth embodiment; FIG. 13 is an elevational view of the sixth embodiment; FIG.14 is a top plan view of the sixth embodiment, the bottom plan view of the sixth embodiment being identical to the top plan view of the sixth embodiment; FIG. 15 is a sectional view of the sixth embodiment taken along line 15-15 of FIG. 14; and, FIG. 16 is an elevational view of the casing centralizer according to a seventh embodiment, the seventh embodiment being identical to the sixth embodiment except that the seventh embodiment has one indeterminate length as indicated in FIG. 16.

1 Claim, 10 Drawing Sheets


U.S. Patent Jul. 31, 2012 Sheet 1 of 10 US D664,568 S



~.

r '"<:t-

1 oil ~~·"'

k.

........................................ -.._-.--~~--.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.-.~--······ .. ···.~ .. - ..... ~ ..... ~·.··--~··~~ .. ,::: .. ~·<~

.................... _____ ~··········· ·········:.:::::: .... ~~ .. :·:·:·:::::::.....-=:::.:.:::.::=: .. ..:..-=::::::::::::::.:_:::::::~~~~:;;;;~~:~:::~~j ! !

!

~.~.:; .. ~_.,.~_, _.~.-.. ~.~-.~.~.·.~-.... : .•. :._ •.. :.-... :~.--.~ '.:.-.~ .... ~~.~·· .. ··;·········;"········~.•~.-:··.····.···.~ ..... ~·.···-.~.·-~ .... _~··:_~:.· ... : ... -.~.·.: .•. -.-~.:.:.~-.~-~-=~=::::c-------- I -~~;;_~-- ---=~-=--=~-=-~-:=~-=::::1



·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·



.PYg. 6



Fig~ 7



Jo.-4. F'1:g.. 9


U.S. Patent Jul. 31, 2012

....... ,,

....... '· ...

··., ........ ..

-~~~~ ~ ...........

....... ······-.. ,

....... ''· ....• ,

.. , .......... .•.•

·~.,~~. ~ '·

··· .. , ...

....... ·~-~~~~

.......

....,,

8 .......

.......

~~~~ . .

···~.,~-

.......... '·.,

l .......

l''' .......

\''•, ~--~

I'ig, ·~·

10

Sheet 7 of 10

. /j~

':i /!l . 11

lii / ~ ~

U'! ./ i i

~ i ~ { .I i

f l {! t,\ /1 I i r..::;:;::.....-i 1.1 1 i ii

.1. i ii

;i.i I i I ! ! i

US D664,568 S

lil Hl } ~ .•

Pl :f: ;· J,

! I fi.,~ ,If ill ·i. I· { ti i If! p! :fl ., I





,



{::..........--:::::::...::::==.:.::::::.::::·~:s.~ss.:~~..:,-::::x;:.""~

~===-~=::: \

~~~



Patent/bookefNo; 125£4.50 Customer No .. 27683

Witiress SignatUre . • . , · · ·.·, ' .. ·, ·, >L · .·.· Witness Name: 1/lnur NJ('t)

Fort Worth, TX Houston, TX San Antonio, TX Woodward, OK Oklahoma City, OK Washington, PA Montoursville, PA Canton, OH

For the best drilling technology innovations, go straight to the top.

Now the top name in casing equipment has the newest

innovation in casing centralizers: the all-new TorqGlider

Composite Centralizer. This revolutionary new design

features state-of-the-art composite construction with

a low co-efficient of friction, delivering casing to total

depth faster, more efficiently, and in the least amount

of time.

The TorqGlider’s one-piece composite construction is

designed for high impact stress and is wear resistant.

It also facilitates easier break-away from obstructions

and rough spots.

Proudly made in the USA, the TorqGlider is superior

to plastic centralizers because there’s no vulnerable

weak point often found in molded, injected units.

The TorqGlider is one, solid piece of ultra-hard

and extremely durable composite that’s heat

resistant to maintain integrity in extreme

well bore temperatures.

Composite Centralizer

Introducing the NEW

TorqGlider Low co-efficient of friction

Rugged, one-piece composite construction

Designed for horizontal application

Maintains integrity in extreme temperatures

High impact and wear resistance

Smooth, lightweight construction

No vulnerable weak points

Contact Us

Phone: 1.877.860.0969

Web: summitcasing.com


Top-Co v Summit Complaint

Documents