May 7, 2026 | By: James F. Lea, III and David G. Woodral

In an industry increasingly driven by technology, data, and innovation, intellectual property (IP) is no longer a niche concern, it’s a core business asset. From patents and trade secrets to trademarks and copyrights, understanding how IP rights are created, protected, and transferred is critical to preserving value and avoiding costly disputes. This Alert breaks down the fundamentals and highlights key contractual considerations recently presented at GableGotwals’ Annual Energy Market Drivers and Current Legal Issues Seminar.

Key Takeaways

1. Intellectual Property Comes in Multiple Forms – Each with Distinct Protections

The primary types of IP include:

• Patents (protect inventions and processes)
• Trademarks (protect brand identifiers such as names, logos, and slogans)
• Copyrights (protect original works of authorship)
• Trade Secrets (protect confidential business information)

Each of these categories has different legal standards, duration of protection, and enforcement mechanisms.

2. Patents Provide Powerful, but Limited, Rights

Under the U.S. Patent Act, patents protect new and useful inventions, processes, or improvements. To qualify, inventions must be novel and non-obvious. Patent holders gain the right to exclude others from making, using, or selling the invention. Rights generally last 20 years from filing.

3. Timing Is Everything – Early Disclosure Can Destroy Patent Rights

Patent protection can be lost if an invention is:

• Publicly disclosed
• Offered for sale
• Used publicly before filing

While U.S. law provides a limited grace period, disclosing the invention to the public prior to filing presents risks. Be sure to file early or risk losing protection entirely.

4. Ownership Is Not Always Automatic

By default, inventors own patent rights.  An employment relationship can change this, but the best practice is to address IP ownership through employment agreements and assignment provisions.

For copyrights, “Work made for hire” doctrines may assign ownership to employers, but only in specific circumstances.

Failure to properly address ownership of IP can undermine ownership claims.

5. Trade Secrets Require Active Protection

Trade secrets include:

• Proprietary data
• Processes
• Software or formulas

Protection depends on maintaining secrecy and implementing reasonable safeguards (e.g., NDAs, access controls). However, once disclosed, protection may be lost permanently.

6. Contracts Are the Front Line of IP Risk Management

Key contractual considerations include:

• Ownership of newly developed IP during a project
• Assignment obligations for inventions
• Confidentiality provisions to preserve trade secrets

Agreements should clearly define:

• Who owns what
• Who can use what
• Under what conditions

7. Licensing Strategy Can Make or Break Value

Patent licenses can:

• Be explicit or implied (though explicit is best practice)
• Be limited by geography, time, or field of use, or other parameters

The patent exhaustion doctrine (or first sale doctrine) may prevent enforcement after an authorized sale of a particular item.

Poorly structured licenses may unintentionally give away rights.

8. IP Rights Must Align with Business Strategy

Patents function as a limited legal monopoly, but only within defined boundaries. Risks to manage include:

• Expiration of rights
• Loss through litigation or administrative challenges
• Failure to maintain patents (e.g., unpaid fees)

Be sure to align IP protection and licensing strategy with long-term commercial goals.

The Bottom Line

Intellectual property is one of the most valuable and most misunderstood assets in the energy sector. Without careful planning, companies risk losing rights, undermining deals, or exposing themselves to litigation.

By proactively managing IP through thoughtful drafting, early filing strategies, and clear contractual frameworks, energy companies can protect innovation, preserve competitive advantage, and unlock long-term value.

GableGotwals Intellectual Property Practice Group advises clients on patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets, licensing, and other intellectual property matters. The team regularly works with clients across a variety of industries, including the energy sector, to help protect innovation, manage intellectual property risks, and develop strategies tailored to each client’s business objectives. For questions regarding this topic or other intellectual property matters, please contact the authors or a member of our Intellectual Property team.

This series covers topics featured during GableGotwals’ Annual Energy Market Drivers and Current Legal Issues Seminar. To receive Alerts and information on future Firm events, subscribe to our mailing list.

James F. Lea, III
918-595-4884
jlea@gablelaw.com

 David G. Woodral
OK: 918-595-4883
TX: 346-594-5009
dwoodral@gablelaw.com

This article is provided for educational and informational purposes only and does not contain legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship. The information provided should not be taken as an indication of future legal results; any information provided should not be acted upon without consulting legal counsel.

GableGotwals acted as co-counsel to Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company, a subsidiary of OGE Energy Corp., in its $350 million public offering of 5.90% senior notes due 2056. The notes will mature on April 1, 2056, and the proceeds are expected to be used for general corporate purposes, including the repayment of short-term debt, borrowings under its revolving credit facility, and funding capital investments and working capital needs.

April 21, 2026 | By: Scott Kiplinger

On April 20, 2026, President Trump issued a Presidential Determination under the Defense Production Act (“DPA”) to increase domestic energy production in an effort to address shortages related to the ongoing conflict in the Middle East. This follows the administration’s invocation of the DPA in March, which directed a California operator to restore operations of an offshore unit and pipeline system.

Section 303 of the DPA authorizes the President to restore or expand domestic industrial capabilities, which are essential for the national defense. Such measures may include purchasing resources for government use or resale, funding exploration and production activities, and sponsoring commercial research and development.

The DPA also includes specific limits on federal commercial activity by prohibiting the purchase of materials below the current domestic market price and limiting the timeline on which those materials may be developed and delivered. However, the President may waive those limitations should he determine it is necessary to avert an industrial resource shortfall that would severely impair national defense capability. President Trump’s Determination explicitly waived those statutory limitations in order to advance large-scale energy infrastructure.

It is unlikely that yesterday’s Directive will have an immediate effect on consumer prices. Since taking office, the Trump administration has pushed for increased domestic energy production to counter shortfalls caused in part by regulatory and market constraints. These forecasted shortfalls have been exacerbated by overseas events, and the administration’s response is in keeping with its support for energy development across the board. But it remains unclear which specific mechanisms, such as purchasing commitments or infrastructure funding, the government will use under the DPA.

Presidential authority under the DPA is broad, but temporary, and subject to statutory controls and legal challenges. Operators and consumers should therefore continue to monitor future executive action to determine new opportunities for enhanced growth spurred by reduced regulatory controls.

Scott Kiplinger is an attorney at GableGotwals. This Alert was prepared in collaboration with the Firm’s Energy Practice Group in a continuing effort to keep our clients informed of the transitions of law within the areas they operate. For questions regarding this development, or any other energy questions, please contact Scott or a member of our team.

Scott Kiplinger
405-568-3317
skiplinger@gablelaw.com

This article is provided for educational and informational purposes only and does not contain legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship. The information provided should not be taken as an indication of future legal results; any information provided should not be acted upon without consulting legal counsel.

GableGotwals advised Boardwalk Pipelines, LP, in its acquisition of Spire Marketing Inc., a gas marketing business unit, from Spire Inc. The acquisition marks a significant step in advancing Boardwalk’s long-term growth strategy by expanding its presence across the natural gas value chain.

March 31, 2026 | GableGotwals recently advised Boardwalk Pipelines, LP, in its acquisition of Spire Marketing Inc., a gas marketing business unit, from Spire Inc. The acquisition marks a significant step in advancing Boardwalk’s long-term growth strategy by expanding its presence across the natural gas value chain, enhancing marketing capabilities and customer reach, and increasing flexibility and connectivity for customers while supporting the evolving demands of America’s energy market. Click here to read the full press release.

The transactional team consisted of Stephen W. Lake, Douglas J. May, Jeffrey D. Hassell, James M. Scears (who provided tax advice), and Bailey Barnes.

About Boardwalk Pipelines, LP

Boardwalk Pipelines, LP (“Boardwalk”) delivers reliable energy by connecting natural gas supply with the markets and communities that depend on it. Through an integrated network of interstate and intrastate pipelines and underground storage assets, Boardwalk supports energy reliability, market connectivity, and long-term value creation across the United States, including the Gulf Coast, Midwest, and Southeast. Boardwalk is committed to operating‑safely, reliably, and responsibly while evolving its capabilities to better serve customers in a dynamic and increasingly complex energy market. Learn more at bwpipelines.com.

About GableGotwals

GableGotwals® is a full-service law firm with more than 100 attorneys and 70 other business professionals in Oklahoma and Texas. We represent a diversified client base across the nation, and our connections and reach are global. Fortune 500 corporations, privately owned companies, entrepreneurs, foundations, and individuals entrust us every day with the stewardship and strategic management of their legal challenges.

March 18, 2026 | By: Scott Kiplinger

The Trump administration’s recent use of the Defense Production Act (“DPA”) to open a segment of a pipeline off the coast of Santa Barbara signals to our energy clients that the exigencies of the ongoing dispute in the Middle East may affect ongoing operations.

The federal government recently directed Sable Offshore Corporation to restore operations of the Santa Ynez Unit and Santa Ynez Pipeline System. This follows previous efforts from the administration to stabilize global oil markets disrupted by conflict in the Middle East, which has included releasing 172 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and coordinating with members of the International Energy Agency to release up to an additional 400 million barrels.

As global events unfold, domestic energy companies should be aware that the current administration is willing to consider unorthodox approaches to increase production capacity, subject to challenges from state and local authorities.

The administration issued the order to resume operations pursuant to the DPA, a federal law enacted in 1950, which permits the federal government to enact regulations and orders to allocate materials in the interest of national defense. In addition to wartime efforts, previous administrations have invoked the DPA to respond to natural disasters, the COVID-19 pandemic, and foreign cyberattacks. U.S. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright stated the directive will permit Sable to produce 50,000 barrels of oil per day and decrease domestic reliance on foreign crude oil. Sable resumed operations along the pipeline on the day the administration issued its order.

This offshore oil platform and pipeline have been shuttered for 11 years, and Sable has attempted to resume operations since it purchased the assets from ExxonMobil in 2024. California has contested the administration’s order, claiming that it violates the state’s regulatory authority and poses an environmental hazard. Governor Gavin Newsom issued a statement pledging to challenge the order in court, alluding to a 2015 incident in which the pipeline released thousands of barrels of crude oil along the Santa Barbara coastline. Sable reports the company completed its onshore anomaly repair program and hydrotested all pipeline segments in May of 2025.

The administration’s use of the DPA signals a willingness to intervene directly in energy infrastructure operations where supply, transportation capacity, or national security concerns are implicated. Oklahoma producers and midstream operators should be mindful that federal intervention is possible, with potential upside to unlock capacity and constraint issues and cut through permitting delays. But these opportunities also carry litigation, regulatory, and operational risk. Against this backdrop, energy companies should evaluate how federal authorities could affect existing assets, expansion plans, and idle or constrained infrastructure.

Scott Kiplinger is an attorney at GableGotwals. This Alert was prepared in collaboration with the Firm’s Energy Practice Group in a continuing effort to keep our clients informed of the transitions of law within the areas they operate. For questions regarding this development, or any other energy questions, please contact Scott or a member of our team.

Scott Kiplinger
405-568-3317
skiplinger@gablelaw.com

This article is provided for educational and informational purposes only and does not contain legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship. The information provided should not be taken as an indication of future legal results; any information provided should not be acted upon without consulting legal counsel.

January 8, 2026 | GableGotwals is pleased to announce that Byron C. Keeling has joined the Firm’s Houston office as Of Counsel.

Byron has more than 30 years of experience representing clients in litigation and appeals, including oil and gas, contract, and business disputes. He has argued cases before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the Supreme Court of Texas, and numerous Texas courts of appeals.

In addition to his appellate practice, Byron is a commercial arbitrator with the American Arbitration Association. He previously served as a law clerk to the Honorable Sam D. Johnson of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

“We are pleased to welcome Byron to the Firm. His impressive litigation experience, especially in appeals, is a great addition to our existing appellate team of three former federal appellate law clerks from the 7^th and the 10^th Circuits,” said John Sullivan, litigation Shareholder in Houston. Their experience further strengthens the Firm’s appellate practice and provides critical insight into how judges view and consider cases.

“Byron’s addition strengthens our appellate and litigation capabilities and supports the continued expansion of our Houston office. His experience contributes to our ability to serve clients in Texas as we continue building our local presence in the region,” said John Dale, CEO of GableGotwals.

About GableGotwals
GableGotwals® is a full-service law firm with more than 100 attorneys and 70 other business professionals in Oklahoma and Texas. We represent a diversified client base across the nation, and our connections and reach are global. Fortune 500 corporations, privately owned companies, entrepreneurs, foundations, and individuals entrust us every day with the stewardship and strategic management of their legal challenges.

January 5, 2026 | By: Tim Sowecke and Tyler A. Self

On December 5, 2025, EPA Assistant Administrator Craig Pritzlaff issued a memorandum (the “Pritzlaff Memo”) directing the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (“OECA”) to adopt a renewed “compliance first” approach across all civil enforcement and compliance programs. The memorandum reflects a deliberate shift away from prolonged investigations and expansive remedial demands, refocusing EPA on efficient return to compliance, clear and defensible statutory interpretation, and consistent application of enforcement principles across EPA regions. EPA’s new approach promises more predictable, cooperative, and legally grounded enforcement, reducing expansive demands and giving regulated entities a clearer path to resolve ambiguities.

With the new year underway and EPA recalibrating its enforcement policy, now is the ideal time for companies to proactively resolve enforcement issues and secure efficient, durable compliance outcomes.

The Compliance First Framework

The Pritzlaff Memo directs EPA personnel to prioritize timely compliance rather than extended investigations or the pursuit of every conceivable violation. The agency acknowledges that earlier approaches—often marked by lengthy fact-finding, layered information requests, or efforts to expand regulatory interpretations—can delay actual environmental protection without actually improving long-term outcomes. The memorandum identifies six guiding principles for its compliance first framework:

1. Emphasis on Compliance Assistance

EPA encourages proactive outreach, technical assistance, training, and voluntary compliance through audits and self-reporting to help regulated entities identify and correct issues promptly. The goal is straightforward: where early engagement can correct noncompliance, enforcement escalation should be unnecessary.

2. Reinforced Cooperative Federalism

EPA commits to appropriate deference to authorized state programs, close coordination with state partners, and avoidance of duplicative or conflicting oversight. States remain the primary implementers for many environmental programs, and EPA signals an intent to support, not supplant, them.

3. Open Communication with the Regulated Community

EPA staff are instructed to maintain a transparent, “no surprises” approach during inspections and enforcement actions. Clear expectations and predictable processes are intended to foster trust and achieve earlier, more efficient resolutions.

4. Enforcement Based on Clear and Defensible “Best Reading” of Law

Going forward, violations must rest on clear, unambiguous, and narrowly tailored interpretations grounded in the best reading of the governing statutory and regulatory text. The memorandum cautions that expansive interpretations untethered from plain meaning create regulatory uncertainty and undermine public confidence. Notably, the memorandum situates this guidance in the post-Chevron administrative landscape, expressly referencing the Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright, and signals OECA’s heightened sensitivity to judicial scrutiny of agency interpretations.

The memorandum further directs that material legal ambiguities may no longer be resolved ad hoc at the regional or field level but instead must be elevated to national leadership to ensure consistency and avoid divergent regional interpretations. Regional staff, including enforcement attorneys, are expressly instructed not to resolve such questions independently, ensuring consistent nationwide application of environmental statutes.

5. Compliance Requirements and Injunctive Relief

Another shift reflected in the memorandum is the rescission of the April 2021 OECA guidance that encouraged the use of expansive injunctive tools for enforcement, such as advanced monitoring, third-party supervision and verification, enhanced reporting, electronic data portals, facility-wide audits, supplemental environmental projects (“SEPs”), and other measures bearing only attenuated connections to statutory violations.

Under EPA’s new policy, enhanced monitoring and reporting requirements are now “generally not appropriate” unless expressly required by law and directly tied to the specific noncompliance at issue. Likewise, third-party audits, third-party verification, and third-party monitoring may be raised in settlement negotiations only with prior approval from the OECA Assistant Administrator.

6. Reasoned Decision Making: LEAPS

The memorandum stresses the application of the “LEAPS” framework when making decisions on noncompliance and the appropriate means for achieving compliance:

• Law: the clearest, most defensible reading.
• Evidence: reliable and supportable facts.
• Analysis: sound, transparent reasoning.
• Programmatic Impact: avoiding mission creep.
• Stakeholder Impact: including states, Tribes, and regulated entities.

The LEAPS framework reflects the agency’s recognition that environmental statutes are complex enough without the addition of novel or aggressive interpretations. EPA further states that it will act “swiftly” to limit abusive litigation tactics from third parties, such as citizen suits. While citizen suits play an important enforcement role, the memo acknowledges that some have sought remedies beyond what environmental laws authorize.

What Now? Practical Implications for Regulated Entities

Although the guidance is not legally binding, the Pritzlaff Memo was transmitted to OECA and regional leadership and took immediate effect, applying to all civil, judicial, and administrative enforcement matters, including those already underway. Regulated entities should anticipate meaningful shifts in EPA’s day-to-day enforcement posture under the Pritzlaff Memo.

Inspections and enforcement interactions are likely to become more transparent and predictable, with a stronger emphasis on cooperation and prompt return to compliance rather than extended adversarial exchanges. Entities should also see fewer expansive or creative injunctive demands, particularly those not grounded in statutory authority, reducing uncertainty and costs associated with negotiating extra-regulatory requirements.

At the same time, the memorandum creates a clearer basis for challenging questionable or unsupported interpretations of environmental laws, since EPA staff must elevate ambiguities to national leadership for consistent resolution. Ongoing enforcement matters may slow or be recalibrated as the agency aligns its approach with the new framework. Additional clarity is expected once OECA issues its forthcoming unified guidance document on enforcement levels, which should further define expectations and outcomes for regulated parties.

Conclusion

The Pritzlaff Memo marks a deliberate recalibration of EPA’s enforcement philosophy: a return to clarity, consistency, and timely compliance. While environmental enforcement will remain vigorous where necessary, regulated entities should expect (and demand if necessary) a more focused, legally grounded, and predictable process that aims to resolve noncompliance efficiently rather than expand the scope of regulatory obligations through enforcement leverage.

For assistance with regulatory compliance and enforcement issues, please contact Tim Sowecke or Tyler A. Self. GableGotwals’ Administrative & Regulatory, Energy, Oil and Gas, and Environmental and Natural Resources teams regularly advise clients on regulatory compliance and enforcement.

Tim Sowecke
405-568-3308
tsowecke@gablelaw.com

Tyler A. Self
405-235-5589
tself@gablelaw.com

This article is provided for educational and informational purposes only and does not contain legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship. The information provided should not be taken as an indication of future legal results; any information provided should not be acted upon without consulting legal counsel.