Unocal vs. Valero: Patent Infringement on Cleaner Burning Gasoline
14
Unocal vs. Valero: Patent Infringement on Cleaner Burning Gasoline Adriana Winfield UC Berkeley, Chemical Engineer November 3, 2008 IEOR 190G
description
Unocal vs. Valero: Patent Infringement on Cleaner Burning Gasoline. Adriana Winfield UC Berkeley, Chemical Engineer November 3, 2008 IEOR 190G. Unocal’s Background. Founded in 1890 in Santa Paula, California Independent petroleum company until 2005 Merged with Chevron Corporation. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Transcript of Unocal vs. Valero: Patent Infringement on Cleaner Burning Gasoline
Unocal vs. Valero: Patent Infringement on Cleaner Burning Gasoline
Adriana WinfieldUC Berkeley, Chemical Engineer
November 3, 2008IEOR 190G
Unocal’s Background
Founded in 1890 in Santa Paula, California
Independent petroleum company until 2005
Merged with Chevron Corporation
Valero’s Background
Founded in 1980s in San Antonio, Texas
3.3 million barrels of oil per day
Largest refinery in North America
vs.
In 2002, Unocal sued Valero for patent infringement on patents ‘393 and ‘126
Patents discuss cleaner-burning gasoline
A loss for Valero would cost them 17.25 cents for every gallon refined allegedly using Unocal's patented process
Patent 5,288,393
CnH2n+2
Unleaded: [lead] < 0.05gram lead/gallon
Patent 5,288,393
Patent 5,288,393
Patent 5,288,393
Fuel Injection System
Patent 5,288,393Decreasing 50% D-86 distillation point => decrease in hydrocarbons and CO emissions
Decreasing Reid Vapor Pressure => decrease in NOx emissions
10% D-86 Distillation point decrease => decrease in NOx emissions
Olefin decrease => decrease in NOx emissions
Patent ‘393: Specifications
Describes benefits and methods of varying gasoline characteristics.
1) relationships among fuel characteristics and CO, NOx, and HC emissions,2) characteristics most important for emissions3) specific desirable ranges for RVP, T10, T50,olefins, paraffins, and aromatics
Patent ‘126 made it covers every single gallon of California summer CARB, a state agency, gasoline
Valero’s Response
“We believe the patents are invalid because we believe that Unocal violated anti-competitive laws,” - Bill Greehey, chairman of the board and CEO of Valero.
Who wins?
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office examiner on Dec. 18 rejected Unocal's claim to patent rights for its "393" gasoline
Patent office found that Unocal did not invent anything new or novel because the '393' compositions were so close to prior compositions
The Federal Trade Commission charges Unocal with “patent ambush” and illegal anticompetitive conduct.
Thank You!
Thank you for listening. Are there any questions?
