- looked at using an Amoco anticoking process in one of their steam crackers
- injected sodium borohydride into their caustic scrubber to reduce acetaldehyde in their butadiene which they sold to Shell
- and used phenylenediamine as a inhibitor in their C3 column.
There are some caveats with the information provided above. It's all from the mid- and late-90's (yes, the hands of justice move quite slowly) and you have to cull through a 299-page document to find some of this. These items noted above were from the background section of the court's decision, so you know that transcripts from the trial would have even more details. However, I seriously doubt that much of this information is too proprietary, but nonetheless, it still makes for some curious and somewhat revealing reading. I'm just surprised that all these details were needed in the trial, as I would think that the judges would only be interested in a high level view of the research, not specific chemical entities and customer's names. I don't recall running across any of the technical details that were wrong, something that the Supreme Court could use a few lessons in (2 + 2 is somewhere between 3 and 5.