Well Master Corporation v. Flowco Production Solutions, LLC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Senior Judge Christine M. Arguello
Civil Action No. 21-cv-02145-CMA-KLM
WELL MASTER CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
v.
FLOWCO PRODUCTION SOLUTIONS, LLC,
Defendant.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT’S PARTIAL
MOTION TO DISMISS
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Well Master Corporation’s Motion to
Strike Defendant’s Partial Motion to Dismiss and, Alternatively, for Extension of Time to
Respond Thereto (“Motion to Strike”) (Doc. # 130).
On September 12, 2022, the Court issued an Order (Doc. # 98) affirming in part
and rejecting in part a Recommendation by United States Magistrate Judge Kristen L.
Mix (Doc. # 79) with respect to Defendant Flowco Production Solutions, LLC’s first
partial Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (Doc. # 21). The Court denied
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss with prejudice with respect to Plaintiff’s willfulness claims
on the basis that those claims were sufficiently pled. (Doc. # 98 at 16–17.) However, the
Court denied Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss without prejudice as to its arguments
regarding the validity of U.S. Patent No. 7,395,865 (“the ’865 Patent”) and ordered this
Case No. 1:21-cv-02145-RMR-KAS Document 142 filed 08/02/23 USDC Colorado
pg 1 of 4

2
action stayed pending Defendant’s petition for inter partes (“IPR”) review. (Id.) The
Court ordered: “If Defendant’s petition for IPR is denied, Defendant may refile its Motion
to Dismiss.” (Id. at 6.)
Defendant’s petitions for IPR and rehearing requests were subsequently denied,
and the stay in this action was lifted on June 7, 2023. (Doc. # 124.) On June 30, 2023,
Defendant filed its second Partial Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6). (Doc. # 125.) In support, Defendant specifically cited this Court’s prior Order
granting Defendant leave to refile its partial motion to dismiss in the event that
Defendant’s petition for IPR was denied. (Id. at 1.)
Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Strike on July 7, 2023. (Doc. # 130.) Therein,
Plaintiff argues that Defendant did not “merely refile” its First Motion to Dismiss as to the
’865 Patent, but rather raises new issues as to other claims of the ’865 Patent and “an
entirely new allegation that claims of asserted U.S. Patent No. 7,793,728 ( “the ’728
Patent”) are also invalid as patent-ineligible.” (Id. at 3.) Because of these new
arguments, Plaintiff contends that it will be unfairly prejudiced if it is required to expend
substantial resources in preparing a response to an “unauthorized Second Motion to
Dismiss.” (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff also objects that Defendant’s second Motion to Dismiss is in
violation of this Court’s Practice Standards because it is 10 pages too long. (Id. at 3.)
In Response, Defendant argues that the Court expressly permitted it to refile a
second Motion to Dismiss in accordance with this Court’s Civ. Practice Standard 7.1B,
which provides: “Unless otherwise ordered, each party shall be limited to the filing of a
single motion to dismiss directed at the operative pleading.” (Doc. # 135 at 5–6.)
Case No. 1:21-cv-02145-RMR-KAS Document 142 filed 08/02/23 USDC Colorado
pg 2 of 4

3
Defendant also contends that it is appropriate for the refiled Motion to Dismiss to
address the ’728 Patent because after Defendant filed its first partial Motion to Dismiss,
Plaintiff disclosed and later supplemented its infringement contentions alleging
infringement of several claims of the ’728 Patent as well as additional claims of the ’865
Patent. According to Defendant, its central argument regarding invalidity in its first
Partial Motion to Dismiss (that the patent “is simply directed at rotation, and thus patent
ineligible as an abstract concept”) also applies to the other claims in the ’865 Patent and
the subsequently disclosed claims of the ’728 Patent. (Id. at 4.) Defendant argues that
the Court should thus consider the second Motion to Dismiss in the interest of
“secur[ing] the just, speedy and inexpensive determination” of this case. (Id. at 7.)
The Court finds that Defendant’s second Partial Motion to Dismiss is proper
because (1) the Court expressly permitted Defendant leave to refile its Motion to
Dismiss if its petition for IPR was denied, and (2) interests of judicial economy and
efficiency support considering the merits of the second Partial Motion to Dismiss. See
Civ. Practice Standard 7.1B. To the extent that Plaintiff objects that the Motion to
Dismiss should be converted into a Motion for Summary Judgment or that Defendant
raises arguments that are improper in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, Plaintiff may argue as
much in its Response.
For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED as follows:
• 	Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendant’s Partial Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (Doc. # 130) is DENIED.
Case No. 1:21-cv-02145-RMR-KAS Document 142 filed 08/02/23 USDC Colorado
pg 3 of 4

4
• 	Plaintiff’s alternative request for an extension of time to respond to the Partial
Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Response is due twenty-one (21) days
after the date of this Order and may not exceed twenty-five (25) pages.
DATED: August 2, 2023
BY THE COURT:
_____________________________
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO
Senior United States District Judge
Case No. 1:21-cv-02145-RMR-KAS Document 142 filed 08/02/23 USDC Colorado
pg 4 of 4