## Facts

- BP Chemicals Ltd., a British corporation, owned and licensed proprietary methanol carbonylation technology for manufacturing acetic acid under confidentiality restrictions.
- Jiangsu Sopo Corporation (Group) Ltd., a Chinese state-owned company, owned an acetic-acid facility in China (the “921 plant”).
- BP alleged Sopo, through agents, obtained BP’s confidential design specifications from BP-licensed plants in Asia and used them to build the 921 plant.
- BP alleged the 921 plant’s specifications closely matched BP’s proprietary documents, including replicated typographical errors.
- BP further alleged Sopo disclosed the specifications to U.S. vendors and engineering firms for fabrication of equipment shipped from the United States to China.
- BP sued in federal court asserting, among other claims, (1) a Lanham Act § 44 claim tied to Article 10bis of the Paris Convention, and (2) a claim under the Missouri Uniform Trade Secrets Act (MUTSA).
- A parallel proceeding in China involving substantially similar allegations was pending without a final judgment.
- Sopo moved to dismiss or stay based on international comity/international abstention and forum non conveniens, and separately sought judgment on the pleadings on the Lanham Act/Paris Convention and MUTSA claims.

## Issues

1. Whether the court should dismiss or stay the action in deference to the parallel Chinese proceeding based on international comity or international abstention, or dismiss under forum non conveniens.
2. Whether Lanham Act § 44, in conjunction with Article 10bis of the Paris Convention, provides an independent federal cause of action for the alleged trade-secret misappropriation/unfair competition.
3. Whether MUTSA applies to alleged misappropriation occurring before MUTSA’s effective date.

## Decision

- The court denied Sopo’s motion to dismiss or stay based on international comity, international abstention, and forum non conveniens.
- The court granted Sopo judgment on the pleadings on BP’s Lanham Act/Paris Convention claim.
- The court granted Sopo judgment on the pleadings on BP’s MUTSA claim as barred by nonretroactivity.

## Legal Principles

- A pending parallel foreign proceeding, without a final foreign judgment, does not by itself require a federal court to dismiss or stay an action on international comity or international abstention grounds.
- Forum non conveniens dismissal is discretionary and depends on private and public interest factors; alleged U.S.-based conduct and local interests may weigh against dismissal even when key events occurred abroad.
- The Paris Convention’s Article 10bis does not create a self-executing, independent federal cause of action in U.S. courts; Lanham Act § 44 implements national treatment and does not expand substantive federal unfair-competition remedies to encompass trade-secret misappropriation claims not otherwise cognizable under the Lanham Act.
- MUTSA does not apply retroactively to alleged misappropriation occurring before the statute’s effective date; such conduct is not actionable under MUTSA.

## Conclusion

The court kept the case in the U.S. forum despite a parallel Chinese proceeding, but eliminated BP’s federal Lanham Act/Paris Convention theory and its statutory Missouri trade-secrets claim, leaving BP to proceed, if at all, on non-MUTSA and non-Lanham Act theories.


BP Chems. Ltd. v. Jiangsu Sopo Corp. (Grp.) Ltd., 429 F. Supp. 2d 1179 (E.D. Mo. 2006)