BP p.l.c. (commonly "bp"; formerly British Petroleum) is a UK public limited company headquartered at 1 St James's Square, London. It was incorporated in 1909 (the Anglo-Persian Oil Company dates to 1908) and is listed on the London Stock Exchange (BP.L) with American Depositary Receipts on the NYSE (BP). It is a standalone public company — not a subsidiary — with roughly 100,000 employees and 2024 revenue of about $189–195 billion (profit attributable to shareholders of ~$0.4 billion, per bp's 2024 Annual Report and Form 20-F).
Operations. bp is an integrated energy company reporting through three main segments: Gas & Low Carbon Energy (natural gas production and trading, LNG, solar, offshore/onshore wind, hydrogen, carbon capture and storage, power trading); Oil Production & Operations (crude oil and natural gas upstream, including bpx energy in the US); and Customers & Products (retail fuels and convenience, EV charging, the Castrol lubricants brand, aviation and B2B, refining, oil trading, and bioenergy). This is an operating company with physical assets, not a patent-holding vehicle.
Litigation posture. bp appears in our data exclusively as a defendant (0 plaintiff cases, 1 defendant case), which is the classic profile of an operating company targeted by a patent holder rather than an asserter. The single tracked matter was filed on 2015-10-16 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division — a venue historically favored by patent plaintiffs.
Notable case. SIPCO, LLC et al. v. Emerson Electric Co. et al (6:15-cv-00907) was brought by SIPCO, LLC and IP Co., LLC (d/b/a Intus IQ), categorized in the Stanford NPE Litigation Database as "individual-inventor-started" asserters of wireless mesh-networking and remote-monitoring patents. Named defendants included Emerson Electric, Emerson Process Management, Fisher-Rosemount Systems and Rosemount, plus BP p.l.c., BP America, Inc. and BP America Production Company. bp's alleged involvement stemmed from its use of Emerson's Smart Wireless/Rosemount field devices at East Texas oil and gas operations, not from products bp sold. The case was transferred to the Northern District of Georgia (1:16-cv-02690) and consolidated with related Emerson–SIPCO litigation; parallel IPR proceedings invalidated several asserted SIPCO claims.