Weatherford International, Inc. et al v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. et al, No. 2:09-cv-00261 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 14, 2011)

From the Opinion

The passage below is extracted verbatim from the opening of the document. It has not been editorially summarized — consult the full opinion for the court's complete reasoning.

Pending before the court ar e plaintiffs Weatherford International, Inc. and Weatherford/Lamb, Inc.’s (collectively “Weat herford”) motions to: (1) dismiss defendant Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.’s (“Halliburt on”) inequitable conduct counterclaim; and (2) strike Halliburton’s tenth affirmative defense (D kt. Nos. 63 and 64). Because Halliburton has sufficiently pled its inequitable conduct count erclaim under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) and 9(b), the motions are DENIED. I.