Mag_m_ Tech. LLC v. Phillips 66

Authored by: Jeremy J. Gustrowsky

In a recent decision, the Federal Circuit reversed a jury verdict in favor of Phillips 66 in a patent dispute with Magēmā Technology LLC over technology for producing low-sulfur heavy marine fuel oil. The case centered on U.S. Patent No. 10,308,884, which covers a process for desulfurizing marine fuel to meet strict international standards. During the trial, Phillips 66 argued that Magēmā could not prove infringement because it lacked certain test data, even though Phillips had previously told the court that obtaining such data would be too dangerous and that estimates would suffice.

The court found that Phillips’ change in position—first saying actual test data was unnecessary, then insisting it was required at trial—was both “improper and prejudicial.” Despite Magēmā’s objections, the district court allowed Phillips to present this argument to the jury, which ultimately returned a general verdict of noninfringement. The Federal Circuit determined that it was impossible to know whether the jury’s decision was based on this improper argument, and therefore, Magēmā was entitled to a new trial.

Importantly, the Federal Circuit also upheld the district court’s interpretation of the key patent term “HMFO” (heavy marine fuel oil), agreeing that Magēmā had clearly defined the term in its patent. This clarity was crucial because Phillips had tried to narrow the definition to exclude its own products from infringement, but the court rejected this attempt.

This decision highlights the importance of fair trial conduct and the risks of shifting litigation strategies. When a party makes representations to the court during discovery, it cannot later reverse course to gain an advantage at trial. The case now returns to the district court for a new trial, with strict instructions that Phillips cannot argue that actual testing is required to prove infringement under the relevant fuel standards.