Derrick Sues Full Circle Energy on Twelve Screening Patents and a 2017 Settlement Agreement.

The complaint

The case is Derrick Corporation v. Full Circle Energy, LLC, No. 4:26-cv-07345 (S.D. Tex.), a complaint and jury demand filed September 1, 2026 (ECF No. 1) in the Houston Division. The complaint describes Derrick as a Delaware corporation based in Buffalo, New York, that designs and makes vibratory screening machines used in oil and gas drilling and mineral processing, including its Hyperpool and Hyperpool GT shakers. It describes Full Circle Energy, LLC as a Texas limited liability company based in Houston. It pleads fourteen counts: breach of the settlement agreement (Count I), infringement of twelve patents (Counts II through XIII), and tortious interference with an existing contract (Count XIV).

The 2017 settlement agreement

The complaint says that effective March 6, 2017, Derrick settled two patent suits it had filed in the Western District of Louisiana, Nos. 6:15-cv-01238 and 6:16-cv-0128, over replacement screens for its Hyperpool and Dual Pool 600 machines. According to the complaint, the settling parties, a screen company, its then president individually, and a third company, admitted that the patents asserted in the second suit, including U.S. Patents 7,578,394; 8,443,984; 9,027,760; 8,910,796; 9,199,279; 9,370,797; and 9,370,798, are valid and enforceable. The complaint says the former president further admitted that the replacement screens he and the two companies had sold infringe those patents, and elsewhere describes the president and the screen company as having admitted infringement and validity. The settling parties agreed in Section 4.2(c), until the last of those patents expires, not to make, sell, offer, use, or import replacement screens compatible with those machines or with future machines using the same compression technology, and not to help others do so. Section 7.1, the complaint says, binds successors in interest.

Derrick alleges that a company that acquired the screen company in 2017 is bound as its successor and that Full Circle is affiliated with, and operates as a successor in interest to, the replacement screen business of both, pointing to public records: a trademark owned by the acquirer for screens Full Circle advertises, a Full Circle manager who is also an executive of the acquirer, and a Louisiana business address that matches the acquirer's. In Count I it alleges, on information and belief, that Full Circle is that successor and is bound under Section 7.1, and that Full Circle breached Section 4.2(c) by making, selling, and importing the accused screens. In Count XIV it alleges, on information and belief, that Full Circle knew of the agreement, employed or engaged the former screen company president, who it says was individually bound and worked for Full Circle until February 27, 2026, and directed or induced him to market screens and an upgrade kit for Hyperpool shakers, including on a public LinkedIn page, in breach of his covenant.

The twelve patents

The patent counts assert U.S. Patents 7,578,394 (issued August 25, 2009), 8,910,796 (December 16, 2014), 9,027,760 (May 12, 2015), 9,144,825 (September 29, 2015), 9,199,279 (December 1, 2015), 9,370,798 (June 21, 2016), 9,914,153 (March 13, 2018), 9,956,591 (May 1, 2018), 10,603,692 (March 31, 2020), 10,974,282 (April 13, 2021), 11,338,327 (May 24, 2022), and 11,344,917 (May 31, 2022). Ten are titled Method and Apparatuses for Screening; the '692 and '917 patents are titled Method and Apparatus for Screening. The complaint describes them as a family directed to vibratory screening machines, screen assemblies, and methods of screening, all assigned to Derrick. Each patent count refers to a claim chart exhibit (Exhibits M through X) for the claims the accused products are said to practice; those exhibits are not available.

The complaint also alleges that Derrick gives constructive notice under 35 U.S.C. 287(a) by marking its products with a tag pointing to a patent web page that associates the products with the asserted patents.

The accused products and the infringement theories

The accused products are replacement screen assemblies and related screen mounting devices that, according to the complaint, Full Circle designs, makes, sells, and imports for installation in Derrick's Hyperpool and Hyperpool GT vibratory screening machines. The complaint alleges, on information and belief, that they are especially made and adapted for use with those machines and have no substantial noninfringing use, and, on information and belief, that an upgrade kit Full Circle offers for Hyperpool shakers is the kit the former president advertised.

Each patent count alleges direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. 271(a), literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, contributory infringement under 271(c), and inducement under 271(b), on the theory that customers who install the screens and run the machines infringe. Each count alleges, on information and belief, that Full Circle knew of the patent from the settlement agreement and Derrick's marking, and no later than the complaint, and that the infringement is willful.

The relief sought

Derrick asks for judgments of direct, contributory, and induced infringement of each patent, breach of the settlement agreement, and intentional interference; preliminary and permanent injunctions under 35 U.S.C. 283 and enforcing the agreement; damages of at least a reasonable royalty under 35 U.S.C. 284, enhanced up to three times for willfulness; damages for the breaches; a finding that the case is exceptional with attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. 285; and supplemental damages with an accounting. Count XIV also says Derrick is entitled to exemplary damages.

The docket so far

An order signed by Magistrate Judge Peter Bray on September 2, 2026 (ECF No. 3) sets an initial pretrial and scheduling conference for January 14, 2027, by video. Derrick filed a motion for a preliminary injunction on September 16, 2026 (ECF No. 5); the motion is not available. The return of service filed September 29, 2026 (ECF No. 9) states that Full Circle was served on September 28, 2026 with the summons, the complaint and its exhibits, and Derrick's application for a preliminary injunction with its exhibits and a proposed order.

What to watch next

Watch for Full Circle's response to the complaint, any briefing, hearing, or ruling on the preliminary injunction motion, and the January 14, 2027 initial conference. The case can end at any time, including by settlement or voluntary dismissal.