Summary of the Petronas Carigali vs. Kingtime Patent Dispute

Malaysia's national upstream company, Petronas Carigali (PCSB), has exhausted its legal options in a long-running patent infringement dispute with Kingtime International. The case, which began over a decade ago, centers on a mobile offshore production unit (MOPU) built by Petrofac for Petronas Carigali's Sepat field. The Malaysian Federal Court denied PCSB leave to appeal a prior Court of Appeal ruling, effectively confirming that PCSB infringed two of Kingtime's patents related to the MOPU's detachable wellhead support structure. Kingtime is claiming $133 million in damages.

Timeline and Key Events

The dispute traces back to 2008, when Kingtime presented its patented technology to Petronas' development division. In July 2010, Petronas Carigali issued an invitation to bid (ITB) for the Sepat platform that incorporated this technology due to significant technical challenges. The following month, Gryphon (Kingtime's licensee) entered a confidentiality agreement with Petrofac. In September 2010, Gryphon forwarded a proposal to Petronas Carigali containing detailed design information utilizing Kingtime's patents. Petrofac won the $280 million EPCIC contract for the Sepat early production system in December 2010 and delivered the platform in 2011. Kingtime became aware of the MOPU in September 2011 through media reports and sent a letter alleging patent infringement in July 2012. With no resolution, Kingtime launched court action in November 2018.

Court Decisions and Implications

In September 2025, the Court of Appeal ruled that Petronas Carigali was bound by a previous ruling finding Petrofac had infringed Kingtime's patents, citing a sufficient nexus between the two companies based on contractual arrangements for the platform's design and construction. In May 2026, the Federal Court denied PCSB leave to appeal, holding it failed to meet the threshold under Section 96 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964. PCSB was also ordered to pay 50,000 ringgit ($12,639) in costs. Petronas confirmed it respects the decision and will consult solicitors on next steps.

Significance for the Industry

Lawyers from Tay & Partners noted the case is significant for large engineering, infrastructure, and oil and gas projects, where owners, contractors, and technical parties collaborate closely. The decision serves as a reminder that patent risk exposure may extend beyond the original designer or manufacturer, particularly when parties are involved in the development, approval, and use of the technology. The Court of Appeal's decision now stands as an important Malaysian authority on patent enforcement and the principle of finality in litigation.