Sasol North America, Inc. v. GTLPetrol, L.L.C., 682 F. App'x 312

Background

Sasol and GTLPetrol (Petrol) met in 2010–2011 under confidentiality agreements while discussing GTL (gas-to-liquid) technology; discussions soon ended.
Sasol later announced a planned Louisiana GTL plant and made a January 2013 presentation; Petrol sent cease-and-desist letters threatening suit for patent infringement, trade-secret misappropriation, and breach of confidentiality.
Sasol sued for a declaratory judgment (seeking declarations of noninfringement, invalidity of the patent, and no misappropriation/breach); Petrol filed mandatory counterclaims alleging breach and misappropriation tied to the presentation and the Lake Charles facility (and vaguely "other facilities").
Sasol placed the Louisiana project on indefinite hold and informed the court the plant would not be online until after the patent expired; the parties agreed patent claims were mooted and dismissed.
Remaining were state-law claims (trade-secret and confidentiality) not tied to the Louisiana plant: Petrol’s counterclaims referenced hypothetical use in "other facilities throughout the world," and Petrol represented it would not pursue claims relating to past misappropriation.
The district court dismissed the entire declaratory action for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction (lack of a live controversy); the Fifth Circuit affirmed. Judge Haynes concurred in the judgment only, arguing he would have found jurisdiction but would affirm dismissal under the court’s discretionary authority.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a justiciable "actual controversy" exists after Sasol suspended the Louisiana plant and the patent will expire	Sasol: non-LA, non-patent threats (presentation, generic confidentiality threats, possible use in other facilities) create a live controversy warranting declaratory relief	Petrol: remaining allegations are speculative, hypothetical, or Petrol disavowed pursuing past claims; patent claims are mooted by suspension and expiration	No. Court held no substantial, immediate, concrete controversy remains; dismissal affirmed
Ripeness / timeliness of trade‑secret claim tied to the Jan. 2013 presentation	Sasol: the presentation-based threat still exposes it to suit	Petrol: misappropriation claims are likely time‑barred and, in any event, are not sufficiently immediate or concrete	Court treated the 2013 claim as likely time‑barred and not ripe; insufficient immediacy to sustain DJA action
Whether hypothetical threats about "other facilities" suffice to sustain jurisdiction	Sasol: Petrol’s mention of possible use in other facilities shows ongoing exposure	Petrol: references are vague and contingent on future discovery; speculative and not ripe	Court: such speculative, unspecified allegations are inadequate to create a live controversy
Whether the district court should have exercised discretion to hear the case even if jurisdiction existed (concurrence)	Sasol: continuation appropriate to resolve lingering disputes	Petrol: district court has discretion to dismiss and the facts counsel dismissal	Majority: dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; Concurrence: would find jurisdiction but affirms dismissal under district court’s broad discretion

Key Cases Cited

Am. States Ins. Co. v. Bailey, 133 F.3d 363 (5th Cir.) (declaratory judgment requires actual controversy)
Vantage Trailers, Inc. v. Beall Corp., 567 F.3d 745 (5th Cir.) (requirement that dispute be definite, concrete, and admit specific relief)
MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118 (2007) (actual controversy must be substantial, immediate, and real for DJA relief)
Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568 U.S. 85 (2013) (actual controversy must exist throughout litigation; distinguished by court)
Orix Credit All., Inc. v. Wolfe, 212 F.3d 891 (5th Cir.) (three-step test and district court discretion for declaratory actions)
Venator Grp. Specialty, Inc. v. Matthew/Muniot Family, LLC, 322 F.3d 835 (5th Cir.) (new suit may be filed later if a live controversy arises)