Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Share your feedback on this Case Opinion Preview

Thank You For Submiting Feedback!

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

  • Case Opinion

Sunoco Partners Mktg. & Terminals L.P. v. Powder Springs Logistics, LLC

Sunoco Partners Mktg. & Terminals L.P. v. Powder Springs Logistics, LLC

United States District Court for the District of Delaware

June 9, 2020, Decided; June 9, 2020, Filed

C.A. No. 17-1390-LPS-CJB

Opinion

MEMORANDUM ORDER

WHEREAS, on January 16, 2020, Magistrate Judge Burke issued a Report and Recommendation ("January Report" or "Jan. Rep.") (D.I. 447), recommending that the Court grant-in-part and deny-in-part Plaintiff Sunoco Partners Marketing & Terminals L.P.'s ("Sunoco") motion for partial summary judgment (D.I. 372);

WHEREAS, on January 28, 2020, Sunoco filed objections to the January Report ("Sunoco January Objections") (D.I. 461), specifically objecting that Judge Burke erred in recommending denying summary judgment that Defendants Powder Stream [*4]  Logistics, LLC ("Powder Stream") and Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P.'s ("Magellan" and, together with Powder Stream, "Defendants") accused systems infringe claims 3 and 8 of United States Patent No. 9,606,548 (the "'548 patent");

WHEREAS, on February 10, 2020, Defendants filed a response to Sunoco's January Objections ("Defendants January Response") ("D.I. 484");

WHEREAS, on January 28, 2020, Magellan filed objections to the Jan. 16 Report ("Magellan January Objections") (D.I. 460), specifically objecting that Judge Burke erred in recommending granting Sunoco's motion for partial summary judgment that accused Magellan systems infringe claim 3 of United States Patent No. 6,679,302 (the "'302 patent");

WHEREAS, on February 10, 2020, Sunoco filed a response to Magellan's January Objections ("Sunoco January Response");

WHEREAS, on February 6, 2020, Judge Burke issued a Report & Recommendation ("February Report" or "Feb. Rep.") (D.I. 477), recommending that the Court grant-in-part and deny-in-part Sunoco's motion for summary judgment that certain references do not qualify as prior art (D.I. 377);

WHEREAS, on February 20, 2020, Defendants filed objections to the February Report ("Defendants February Objections") (D.I. 499), specifically objecting that a fact dispute existed as to [*5]  whether the TransMontaigne system ("TransMontaigne") was publicly accessible;

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101485 *; 2020 WL 3060458

SUNOCO PARTNERS MARKETING & TERMINALS L.P., Plaintiff, v. POWDER SPRINGS LOGISTICS, LLC, and MAGELLAN MIDSTREAM PARTNERS, L.P., Defendants.

Prior History: Sunoco Partners Mktg. & Terminals L.P. v. Powder Springs Logistics, LLC, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45190 (D. Del., Mar. 13, 2020)Sunoco Partners Mktg. & Terminals L.P. v. Powder Springs Logistics, LLC, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10932 (D. Del., Jan. 16, 2020)Sunoco Partners Mktg. & Terminals L.P. v. Powder Springs Logistics, LLC, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33500 (D. Del., Feb. 27, 2020)

CORE TERMS

patents, blending, summary judgment motion, features, recommending, reasonable juror, objecting, infringe, non-patented, denies, supplemental report, motion to stay, jury trial, algorithm, damages, summary judgment, genuine dispute, asserted claim, noninfringement, disclosures, limitations, invalidity, gasoline, parties, Butane, Stream