"In Magēmā (Maggie-May) Technology LLC v. Phillips 66, 2024-1342 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 8, 2025), the Federal Circuit reversed a district court's denial of a new trial motion, finding that defendants' "improper and prejudicial" trial arguments were not harmless error where the jury returned a general verdict of noninfringement. The case arose from Phillips 66's alleged infringement of patents related to desulfurizing heavy marine fuel oil to comply with International Maritime Organization sulfur content requirements."
"One frame to see the case is as a backfire demonstration: Here, defendants fiercely resisted producing evidence during discovery, then later at trial pointed to the absence of that very evidence to defeat plaintiff's case. Although the district court permitted this approach, the appellate panel did not. Writing for a three-judge panel, D.N.J. Chief District Judge Renée Marie Bumb (sitting by designation) found error in permitting Phillips to present this non-infringement argument."
Magēmā Technology LLC sued Phillips 66 over patents for desulfurizing heavy marine fuel oil to meet International Maritime Organization sulfur limits (U.S. Patent No. 10,308,884). The Federal Circuit reversed a district court's denial of a new-trial motion after finding that defendants made improper and prejudicial trial arguments that relied on evidence they had resisted producing during discovery. The jury returned a general verdict of noninfringement, making it impossible to determine whether the prejudicial theory affected the result. Chief District Judge Renée Marie Bumb, sitting by designation, concluded the error was not harmless and ordered reversal.
Read at Patently-O
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]