There's more drama in the world of flanges—obscure but important parts that connect pipes, valves, pumps and other equipment in oil and gas pipelines.

Last month, I wrote about a $31 million jury award to two domestic flange makers, Boltex and Weldbend. Represented by Norton Rose Fulbright and Mayer Brown, the companies alleged an overseas competitor falsely advertised its flanges and competed unfairly.

The bulk of the penalty—$26 million—was disgorgement of profits. But it was a special verdict, which meant the judge had extra time to evaluate it before it became final. 

At the time, a spokesman for the competitor, Spain-based Ulma Piping pointed me to language in the Fifth Circuit's decision in Retractable Technologies, Incorporated v. Becton Dickinson & Co. that might make the award vulnerable.

Sure enough, that decision was what Houston-based U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen invoked on Friday, when he whacked more than $24 million off the verdict to award just $6.67 million. He also rejected the plaintiffs' petition for legal fees.

The judge ruled that while disgorgement was appropriate, the amount was excessive. The court "does not find that the total amount of profits that the jury found were derived from the false advertising should be awarded to Boltex and Weldbend," Hanen wrote. "This would create a windfall for plaintiffs." 

Ulma is represented by Dechert lawyers including Andrew Levander and Hector Gonzalez.