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.
Case 4:13-cv-00445 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 02/19/13 Page 2 of 11
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-Cos 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-Cos 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
Case 4:13-cv-00445 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 02/19/13 Page 3 of 11
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-Cos
customer lists, contacts and information; drawings, specifications, designs, and other
development information related to Top-Cos Top Reach Glider composite centralizer;
advertising and marketing materials developed by Top-Co for its Top Reach Glider composite
centralizer; pricing strategy for Top-Cos Top Reach Glider composite centralizer; and internal
sales information related to Top-Cos Top Reach Glider composite centralizer.
18. As a distributor of Top-Co, Summit offered for sale and sold Top-Cos composite
centralizers using Top-Cos 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 Summits 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-Cos internal information,
including but not limited to, Top-Cos drawings, specifications, designs, and other development
information related to Top-Cos Top Reach Glider centralizer to copy Top-Cos Top Reach
Case 4:13-cv-00445 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 02/19/13 Page 4 of 11
Glider.
22. On information and belief, Summit has used Top-Cos internal information,
including but not limited to, Top-Cos pricing strategy, customer lists, contacts and customer
information to target customers of Top-Cos Top Reach Glider composite centralizer in order
to divert sales from Top-Co.
23. On information and belief, Summit has used Top-Cos internal sales and pricing
information related to Top-Cos 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-Cos Top Reach Glider mark.
26. Summits use of the TorqGlider mark, in fact, makes Summits composite
centralizer appear to be associated with Top-Cos 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 Summits 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-Cos 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 Summits wrongful conduct. Summits 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
Case 4:13-cv-00445 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 02/19/13 Page 5 of 11
by this Court, Summit intends to continue its course of conduct and wrongfully use, infringe
upon, and otherwise profit from Top-Cos 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 Summits 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, Summits infringing activities have been willful and
deliberate.
35. As a result of Summits 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 Summits infringement, Top-Co is entitled to trebling of its actual damages and is
entitled to recover its attorneys fees and costs incurred in prosecuting this action. See 35 U.S.C.
284-285.
36. Summits 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.
Case 4:13-cv-00445 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 02/19/13 Page 6 of 11

TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT
37. The above and foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference.
38. Top-Co has marketed its composite centralizer under the trademark Top Reach
Glider since at least December 2010. Top-Cos mark is suggestive and was developed
specifically for Top-Cos 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-Cos 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-
Cos 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 Summits composite centralizer.
42. By virtue of Summits conduct, there has been and will continue to be confusion
between Top-Cos and Summits composite centralizers and the source of the centralizers.
Summits conduct constitutes infringement of Top-Cos 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-Cos trademark and of a
Case 4:13-cv-00445 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 02/19/13 Page 7 of 11
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-Cos goodwill in its mark and product.
45. Summits 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 attorneys 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 Summits 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
47. The above and foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference.
48. Summit, by virtue of the fact that it has marketed, advertised, used, and offered to
consumers products infringing upon Top-Cos 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-Cos
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-Cos good name and reputation, and wrongful deprivation of Top-Cos right
to public recognition and credit as to true source of composite centralizers.
50. Summit has been marketing, advertising, and offering a composite centralizer
Case 4:13-cv-00445 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 02/19/13 Page 8 of 11
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
52. The above and foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference.
53. As a result of Summits deceptive and confusing conduct in offering the
TorqGlider composite centralizer, as well as use of Top-Cos 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. Summits 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. Summits 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 Summits deceptive acts.
57. Top-Co is entitled to damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
Case 4:13-cv-00445 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 02/19/13 Page 9 of 11
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-Cos trademark;
c. an equitable accounting from Defendant for any and all sales and/or profits or other
benefit derived from Defendants actions, infringement and other unlawful acts;
d. an award of damages adequate to compensate Top-Co for Defendants infringement
of the 568 patent;
e. an award of damages adequate to compensate Top-Co for Defendants infringement
of Top-Cos 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 Defendants patent and trademark infringement have been willful
and deliberate;
Case 4:13-cv-00445 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 02/19/13 Page 10 of 11
g. a determination that this case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. 285, thereby
entitling Top-Co to an award of its reasonable attorneys fees and costs incurred in
prosecuting this action;
h. an award of treble damages based on the willful and deliberate nature of Defendants
infringement;
i. an accounting of damages resulting from Defendants infringement of the568 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 Filed in TXSD on 02/19/13 Page 11 of 11
Case 4:13-cv-00445 Document 1-1 Filed in TXSD on 02/19/13 Page 1 of 12
111111 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 Tech-
nical 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 appli-
cation 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 accord-
ing 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 sev-
enth embodiment has one indeterminate length as indicated in
FIG. 16.
1 Claim, 10 Drawing Sheets
Case 4:13-cv-00445 Document 1-1 Filed in TXSD on 02/19/13 Page 3 of 12
U.S. Patent Jul. 31, 2012 Sheet 1 of 10 US D664,568 S
Case 4:13-cv-00445 Document 1-1 Filed in TXSD on 02/19/13 Page 4 of 12
U.S. Patent Jul. 31, 2012 Sheet 2 of 10 US D664,568 S

r
'"<:t-
1
oil

k.
........................................ .. .. - ..... ..... .. ,::: ..
.................... _____ :.:::::: .... .. ::::::::::.....-=:::.:.:::.::=: ..
!
!
!
.. .. .... : .. :._ .. :.- ... .... .. ..... .... ... : ... .. I

Case 4:13-cv-00445 Document 1-1 Filed in TXSD on 02/19/13 Page 5 of 12
U.S. Patent Jul. 31, 2012 Sheet 3 of 10 US D664,568 S

Case 4:13-cv-00445 Document 1-1 Filed in TXSD on 02/19/13 Page 6 of 12

U.S. Patent Jul. 31, 2012 Sheet 4 of 10 US D664,568 S
.PYg. 6
Case 4:13-cv-00445 Document 1-1 Filed in TXSD on 02/19/13 Page 7 of 12
U.S. Patent Jul. 31, 2012 Sheet 5 of 10 US D664,568 S
F i g ~ 7
Case 4:13-cv-00445 Document 1-1 Filed in TXSD on 02/19/13 Page 8 of 12
U.S. Patent Jul. 31, 2012 Sheet 6 of 10 US D664,568 S
Jo.-4.
F'1:g.. 9
Case 4:13-cv-00445 Document 1-1 Filed in TXSD on 02/19/13 Page 9 of 12
U.S. Patent Jul. 31, 2012
.......
,,
.......
' ...
.,
..........

...........
.......
-..,
.......
'' .... ,
.. , ............

'
.. ,
...
.......

.......
....,,
8
.......
.......
.
.

..........
'.,
l .......
l'''
.......
\'',

I'ig,

10
Sheet 7 of 10
.
':
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
,If
ill
i.
I {
ti i
If!
p!
:fl
.,
I
Case 4:13-cv-00445 Document 1-1 Filed in TXSD on 02/19/13 Page 10 of 12
U.S. Patent Jul. 31, 2012 Sheet 8 of 10 US D664,568 S
Case 4:13-cv-00445 Document 1-1 Filed in TXSD on 02/19/13 Page 11 of 12
U.S. Patent Jul. 31, 2012 Sheet 9 of 10 US D664,568 S
,
Case 4:13-cv-00445 Document 1-1 Filed in TXSD on 02/19/13 Page 12 of 12
U.S. Patent Jul. 31, 2012 Sheet 10 of 10 US D664,568 S



\

Case 4:13-cv-00445 Document 1-2 Filed in TXSD on 02/19/13 Page 1 of 2
Case 4:13-cv-00445 Document 1-2 Filed in TXSD on 02/19/13 Page 2 of 2
Patent/bookefNo; 1254.50
Customer No .. 27683
Witiress SignatUre . . , ., ' .. , , >L ..
Witness Name: 1/lnur NJ('t)
Fort Worth, TX V Houston, TX V San Antonio, TX V Woodward, OK V Oklahoma City, OK V Washington, PA V Montoursville, PA V 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-efcient of friction, delivering casing to total
depth faster, more efciently, and in the least amount
of time.
The TorqGliders 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 theres no vulnerable
weak point often found in molded, injected units.
The TorqGlider is one, solid piece of ultra-hard
and extremely durable composite thats heat
resistant to maintain integrity in extreme
well bore temperatures.
Composite Centralizer
Introducing the NEW
TorqGlider
Low co-efcient 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
Case 4:13-cv-00445 Document 1-3 Filed in TXSD on 02/19/13 Page 1 of 1