Opinion ID: 3014406
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: fluidized bulk density to settled bulk

Text: Facts and Procedural Posture density (“FBD/SBD ratio”). The second element of the ’304 patent is the In 1994 and 1995, the United States maintenance of a certain bulk density Patent and Trademark Office issued two function (called the “Z function”). patents—No. 5,352,749 and No. 5,436,304 2 (called, for simplicity, the ’749 patent and Formed in 1980 as a joint venture the ’304 patent)—to Exxon Corporation between SABIC and Exxon Chemical (now ExxonMobil) for SCM-T. Each Arabia, Inc. (then a subsidiary of Exxon patent has two elements, and the first Corporation), Kemya is now a whollyelement of each patent is the same: “a owned subsidiary of ExxonMobil. 2 breaching its fiduciary duty to Kemya by SHARQ had received permission to encouraging SABIC affiliates (including perform them as the third-party beneficiary one called SHARQ) to practice the SCM -T of agreements between ExxonMobil and p r o c e ss ( t h e “ F o u r t h A m e n d e d another party. Counterclaim”). While SABIC’s Motion to Clarify In February 2000, SABIC moved to was pending, ExxonMobil filed a motion dismiss the Fourth Amended to dismiss SABIC’s claims (the “Motion to Counterclaim. ExxonMobil agreed to the Dismiss”), alleging that SABIC violated dismissal in exchange for SABIC’s the April 2000 Order by allowing SHARQ promise that its affiliates would not to practice SCM-T. SABIC opposed the practice the SCM-T process while the Motion to Dismiss by urging the District litigation was pending. On March 10, Court to confirm its interpretation of the 2000, the parties entered into a stipulation March 2000 Stipulation: that a SABIC that “neither SABIC, SHARQ . . . nor any affiliate did not practice SCM-T by other SABIC affiliate (other than Kemya) operating above 17.4 weight percent will use or practice SCM-T Information3 condensed if it was not also practicing the until the ownership rights thereto are second element of either patent (either by established and the owner expressly maintaining a specific FBD/SBD ratio or a authorizes such use . . . .” (the “March specific Z function). 2000 Stipulation”). In addition to opp osin g The parties tendered the March ExxonMobil’s Motion to Dismiss, SABIC 2000 Stipulation to the District Court on cross-moved under Federal Rule of Civil March 13, 2000. The District Court wrote Procedure 60 to vacate the Court’s “so “so ordered” on the March 10 Stipulation ordered” notation on the March 2000 and later entered it as a court order on Stipulation, in order to convert the April April 3, 2000 (the “April 2000 Order”). 2000 Order into a private agreement (the “Motion to Vacate”). SABIC argued that In the summer of 2000, SABIC’s the District Court entered the March 2000 affiliate, SHAR Q, began operating Stipulation as a court order mistakenly and reactors above 17.4 weight percent contrary to the parties’ intent. The District condensed. Upon learning of this, SABIC Court agreed and granted SABIC’s Motion moved the District Court to clarify the to Vacate in April 2001. Saudi Basic March 2000 Stipulation (the “M otion to Indus. Corp. v. ExxonMobil Corp., No. 98- Clarify”) by confirming that it did not 4897 (D.N.J. Apr. 26, 2001) (vacating the prohibit SHARQ’s operations because “so ordered” notation that was appended to the March 2000 Stipulation as entered 3 “inadvertently and without the parties’ SCM-T Information was defined in the express agreement”). But at the same Stipulation as the processes described in hearing, the District Court also noted the ’749 and ’304 patents. 3 SABIC’s representation that it was not SABIC appealed the June 2002 contesting the Court’s right to continue to Order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). enforce the March 2000 Stipulation. JA at ExxonMobil moved for partial dismissal of 437–38 (Apr. 26, 2001 hearing transcript). the appeal “for want of appellate jurisdiction, or in the alternative, for A year later, on April 3, 2002, the partial summary affirmance.” That motion District Court denied SABIC’s Motion to was referred to a merits panel and is Clarify after finding no legal justification consolidated with SABIC’s appeal of the (such as mutual mistake) to clarify or June 2002 Order. reform the March 2000 Stipulation. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp. v. ExxonMobil Corp., II. 194 F. Supp. 2d 378, 389–90 (D.N.J.