Riles v. Amerada Hess Corp.

Riles v. Amerada Hess Corp.

Opinion

 [***1372]   [*938] ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS

Plaintiff filed this declaratory judgment action on January 12, 1998, seeking a declaration by this Court that Defendant's offshore drilling plans will infringe Plaintiff's patent. Now before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. For the reasons that follow, Defendant's Motion is DENIED.

I. FACTUAL SUMMARY

In 1987, Plaintiff, a professional engineer involved in the design, fabrication, and construction of offshore platforms, was granted a patent for a new method of offshore platform installation. Plaintiff's patented method uses a pre-installed piling foundation, allowing for potentially millions of dollars of savings in fabrication and installation costs  [***1373]  and providing greater potential for salvage and re-use of the offshore platform.

Defendant is a corporation engaged in the exploration, development, production, and sale of crude oil and natural gas. Pursuant [**2]  to leases awarded to Defendant by the United States Government, Defendant's activities include offshore exploration projects in the "Garden Banks" area of the Outer Continental Shelf. These leases require Defendant to pay the Federal Government a 12.5% royalty  [*939]  in exchange for allowing Defendant to drill these areas. Moreover, the leases expressly require Defendant to conform its activities to those regulations governing oil and gas exploration and those rules and regulations promulgated by the United States Department of the Interior Minerals Management Service ("MMS"). Specifically, according to pertinent regulations, Defendant's design, fabrication, and installation plans are subject to verification and approval by the MMS. Furthermore, according to the leases at issue, Defendant is to "conduct all operations on the leased area in accordance with approved exploration plans, and approved development and production plans as are required by regulations."

In accordance with the relevant leases, Defendant submitted its initial Development and Production Plan and detailed verification plans concerning the design, fabrication, and installation of the offshore platform to the MMS. The plans [**3]  were approved. On January 12, 1998, Plaintiff filed in this Court a declaratory judgment action against Defendant alleging that Defendant's planned installation of the offshore platforms would infringe Plaintiff's patent. Defendant's move to dismiss pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a).

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.