dismissed their claims and their requests for injunctive relief

Case 1:04-cv-08825-JFK-HBP Document 118 Filed 06/26/12 Page 28 of 56sublicensed the desired Stauffer technology through UCC)).Similarly, UCC’s 1-naphthol process “involves sophisticatedtechnology [and] equipment requiring unusual materials ofconstruction and is best suited to large-scale production. TheIndian environment is not favorable in any of these respects.”(2005 Heck Decl., Ex. D1 at UCC04204). Therefore, “UCIL hasdeveloped a process requiring less technical knowledge tooperate and fewer alloys.” (Id. at UCC04205). UCIL encountered“[s]evere operating problems” with its naphthol operations.(Handley Decl., Ex. RR at 228). Although UCIL requested “UCC’sassistance to sort out the [naphthol] process problems,” (id.),there is no evidence to suggest that UCC in fact provided anynaphthol technology to UCIL, and UCIL ultimately shut down thenaphthol plant in 1982. (Id.; see 2005 Heck Decl., Ex. D19 atUCC03791). There can be no liability for UCC with respect toany pollution caused by UCIL’s CO or naphthol manufacturingbecause UCIL developed that technology, to the extent it wasused at all, on its own.The 1973 Capital Budget Proposal contemplated that UCILwould use the “MIC-to-Sevin process, as developed by UCC.”(2005 Heck Decl., Ex. D1 at UCC04206). Although UCIL purchaseddesign packages for the manufacture of Sevin from UCC in 1974,the 1977 review of UCIL’s Capital Budget Proposal reports that“SEVIN batch carbamoylation and [1-naphthol] processes were28