IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

SEPARATION ENGINEERS, INC. Plaintiff, v. CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY; PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY; AND WRB REFINING LP, Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. ____

DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF REMOVAL Defendants ConocoPhillips Company, Phillips 66 Company, and WRB Refining LP (collectively Defendants) file this Notice of Removal to remove Civil Action No. 2012-33459 in the 55th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1441 and 1446, and as grounds for removal would show the Court as follows: Removal is proper because Plaintiff Separation Engineers, Inc. (SEI) has asserted claims that raise substantial questions arising under the United States patent laws, which are within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States district courts, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1338(a). See 28 U.S.C. 1338(a). Section 1338(a)s scope includes causes of action whose resolution depends on a substantial question of federal patent law. See Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 808-09 (1988); see also Additive Controls & Measurement Sys., Inc. v. Flowdata, Inc., 986 F.2d 476, 478 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Here, while SEI has attempted to artfully plead around federal patent law issues, there is no doubt that substantial questions of federal patent law must be resolved in this action. These questions

-1-

include, but are not limited to: (1) the claim scope of the ConocoPhillips patents to which SEI alleges it contributed information and which SEI alleges are based on SEI information; (2) determining the reasonable royalty to which SEI claims it is entitled based on (a) the information SEI allegedly contributed to the ConocoPhillips patents, (b) Defendants alleged theft of SEIs proprietary information, (c) Defendants alleged unjust enrichment, and (d) the alleged reasonable value of SEIs proprietary information; (3) determining whether the ConocoPhillips patents cover any of Defendants products or activities; (4) inventorship of the ConocoPhillips patents to which SEI alleges it contributed information; and (5) the scope and enablement of the claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,867,382 (the 382 Patent), allegedly assigned to SEI, and the subject matter dedicated to the public in the 382 Patent must be determined by the Court as a predicate to SEIs claim of breach of the 2004 Confidentiality Agreement and the 2005 Technology Assessment Agreement (see, e.g., Ex. A to Petition at 3 and Ex. B to Petition at first Whereas clause). As such, this case should be removed in its entirety to the United District Court for the Southern District of Texas. This Notice of Removal is timely under 28 U.S.C. 1446(b) because it has been filed within thirty days of service of SEIs initial pleadings in the state action, which were served on June 27, 2012. Further, the documents required by Local Rule 81 are attached as Exhibits A-E.

-2-

Date: July 16, 2012

Respectfully Submitted By /s/ Jayme Partridge Jayme Partridge LEAD ATTORNEY (Texas Bar No. 17132060 and Federal Bar No. 19621) jpartridge@fulbright.com Richard S. Zembek
(Texas Bar No. 00797726 and Federal Bar No. 20602)

rzembek@fulbright.com Paul A. Dyson (Texas Bar No. 24059704 and Federal Bar No. 941113) pdyson@fulbright.com FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI L.L.P. Fulbright Tower 1301 McKinney, Suite 5100 Houston, Texas 77010-3095 Tel: (713) 651-5151 Fax: (713) 651-5246 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS CONOCOPHILLIPS; PHILLIPS 66 AND WRB REFINING CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on July 16, 2012, all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of this document via the Courts CM/ECF system. Any other counsel of record will be served in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. /s/ Jayme Partridge

-3-