Thread regarding Phillips 66 layoffs

Why Doesn't P66 Quit Trying to Get bY With Stuff?

Federal Circuit Orders Retrial in Phillips 66 and Magēmā Patent Dispute, Citing Prejudicial Ruling
7 days ago2 mins
The Federal Circuit has mandated a new trial in a patent infringement case involving Phillips 66 and Magēmā Technology. This decision overturned a Texas federal court’s previous ruling which had dismissed Phillips 66’s noninfringement argument as harmless, despite it being regarded as both “improper and prejudicial.”

The issue arose from allegations by Magēmā Technology accusing Phillips 66 of infringing on patents related to oil refinery processes. The original court decision was contested because the initial judgement failed to appropriately address the improper nature of Phillips 66’s defense, thus prompting the appellate court to demand a retrial. More about the ramifications of this decision can be read in Law360.
Is this how Phillips 66 demonstrates the Honor part of OEA?

#Ethics #Leadership
by Anonymous
| 1842 views | | 6 replies (last October 10) | Reply
Post ID: @OP+1k57b1yjm
Comment! It's anonymous!

6 replies (most recent on top)

@d5 Unfortunately, P66 met with this company in 2017 when they had no idea what to do about the fuel oil sulfur standard coming up for marine. They worked with them for 2 years, then just went in their own. Just like they did with the west coast company Propel - that cost them $900MM and the same amount again in list stick value! You should read the case, it's troubling.

Once is a problem, twice is a pattern. There are many more than just two in the last 10 years. It's disheartening.

by Anonymous
| | Reply
Post ID: @3sp+1k57b1yjm

Just another example of how terrible our legal litigation support has become. Once again, for those of us paying attention, there will be no accountability. Just more evidence why we trail MPC and VLO. We keep the inept (we see you Beauty Queen and addled manager running that team) and let them continue to fail.

by Anonymous
| | Reply
Post ID: @kn+1k57b1yjm

Oh I am agreeing with you. There should never have been a patent for this at all. It’s absurd.

That P66 could not defeat that in court and got embroiled into debating how to estimate flash, saying they couldn’t get a sample to prove it because it was too dangerous, and then later providing a sample from a new sample station should be a big cause for concern. None of that speaks well to their defense.

by Anonymous
| | Reply
Post ID: @h8+1k57b1yjm

They didn't patent hydro treating fuel oil. They patented hydro treating fuel oil that already met the flash spec for marine fuel oil. They are claiming p66 was doing that, with no evidence to the fact (and even if there was, that shouldn't be patentable). The case was thrown out but magema filed an appeal. As many problems as p66 has, this is not one of them

by Anonymous
| | Reply
Post ID: @d5+1k57b1yjm

Patent trolls or not, it looks like Magema tried to claim they patented and had the rights to the concept of hydrotreating fuel oil. And P66 could not defeat that in court.

Not a great showing if P66 can’t stop a company from claiming a patent violation on a concept so broad and obvious and invented well before the 1950s and in use at nearly every refinery still in operations.

by Anonymous
| | Reply
Post ID: @b5+1k57b1yjm

Magema is a patent troll. Seriously, google them and try to find anything about them besides that they're suing p66. They never should have been granted a patent in the first place

by Anonymous
| | Reply
Post ID: @a9+1k57b1yjm

Post a reply

: