The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential decision on Jan. 16, 2026, in *Sunoco Partners Marketing & Terminals L.P. v. Powder Springs Logistics, LLC* (Fed. Cir. 2026), concluding a complex patent infringement dispute in the energy sector that has been litigated since 2017.
The case involves major players in the energy logistics and midstream sectors, with Sunoco Partners Marketing & Terminals L.P. serving as the plaintiff-appellant against defendants Powder Springs Logistics, LLC and Magellan Midstream Partners L.P., who also served as cross-appellants in the consolidated appeals numbered 2023-1218 and 2023-1274.
According to the Federal Circuit opinion, the patent infringement case raises issues of eligibility, infringement, and damages related to systems and methods of blending butane with gasoline. The litigation centers on technology that is fundamental to fuel processing operations in the petroleum industry.
The case originated in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware under case number 1:17-cv-01390-RGA, presided over by Judge Richard G. Andrews. Sunoco Partners sued both Magellan Midstream Partners and Powder Springs Logistics for patent infringement, with the case ultimately proceeding to a bifurcated jury trial.
The district court proceedings resulted in a final judgment against Magellan for willfully infringing claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 6,679,302 and claims 31 and 32 of U.S. Patent No. 7,032. The specific details of the remaining patent number in the case record were not fully disclosed in the available court documents.
The Federal Circuit panel consisted of Circuit Judges Stoll, Clevenger, and Cunningham, with Circuit Judge Stoll authoring the opinion. The court noted that this disposition is nonprecedential, meaning it will not serve as binding precedent for future cases but resolves the specific dispute between the parties.
The legal teams representing the parties include experienced patent litigation attorneys from prominent firms. Sunoco Partners was represented by John R. Keville of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP in Houston, who argued the case before the Federal Circuit. The plaintiff's legal team also included Michael C. Krill and Michelle Replogle from the same firm, along with Richard L. Stanley from the Law Office of Richard L. Stanley in Houston.
Defendants-cross-appellants were represented by Nitika Gupta Fiorella of Fish & Richardson P.C. in Wilmington, Delaware, who argued for all defendants. Magellan Midstream Partners was additionally represented by Martina Tyreus Hufnal and Douglas E. McCann, along with Joseph Herriges, Jr. from Minneapolis. Powder Springs Logistics was separately represented by David Scott Moreland of Miller & Martin PLLC in Atlanta.
The bifurcated trial structure suggests that the case involved complex issues requiring separate proceedings for different aspects of the dispute, which is common in patent cases where liability and damages may be addressed in distinct phases.
Patent disputes in the energy sector often involve sophisticated technical processes that are critical to industry operations. The blending of butane with gasoline represents a key process in petroleum refining and distribution, where proprietary methods can provide competitive advantages and significant economic value.
The willful infringement finding against Magellan indicates that the jury determined the defendant not only infringed the patents but did so with knowledge of the patent rights or with reckless disregard for them. Willful infringement can result in enhanced damages up to three times the actual damages proven at trial.
While the Federal Circuit's decision is nonprecedential, it resolves a long-running dispute that began in 2017 and involved multiple years of litigation in both the district court and appeals court. The case demonstrates the ongoing importance of intellectual property protection in the energy sector, where technological innovations in processing and logistics can translate into substantial business advantages.
The involvement of major energy infrastructure companies like Sunoco Partners and Magellan Midstream Partners highlights the significant stakes involved in patent disputes within this industry. These companies operate extensive pipeline and terminal networks that are essential to the nation's energy infrastructure.
The appeals process consolidated two separate appeal numbers, suggesting that multiple issues or parties sought appellate review of the district court's determinations. The cross-appeals by the defendants indicate they challenged aspects of the lower court's rulings while also defending against Sunoco's appeal.
With the Federal Circuit's decision issued, the parties now have clarity on their respective rights and obligations regarding the disputed patent technology. The nonprecedential nature of the ruling means that while it resolves this specific dispute, it will not establish binding legal precedent for future patent cases involving similar technology or legal issues.