Untitled case

This patent infringement litigation, Case No. 3:24-cv-00033, is currently before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Galveston Division. All pretrial matters have been referred to Magistrate Judge Andrew M. Edison, with District Judge Jeffrey V. Brown overseeing the case and adopting the Magistrate Judge's recommendations.

The plaintiff is Topsoe, Inc., a global leader in catalysis and process technology for producing fuels and chemicals, including green hydrogen, ammonia, and methanol. The defendants are Casale US, Inc., and Casale SA, companies that provide integrated solutions for the production of fertilizers and chemicals, with a stated commitment to sustainable technologies for blue ammonia production. The core of the dispute revolves around U.S. Patent No. 11,286,168, titled "PROCESS FOR AMMONIA PRODUCTION," which generally relates to improved processes for synthesizing ammonia. Topsoe alleges that Casale engaged in bad faith and fraudulent conduct to procure this patent on technology Topsoe claims Casale did not invent, failing to disclose relevant prior art, including Topsoe's own prior art and that raised in European opposition proceedings, during the patent's prosecution. The accused technology appears to be Casale's "HyPURE-N process," which Casale describes as an advanced solution for large-scale ammonia production from natural gas, incorporating an innovative pre-combustion CO2 capture design.

This case is notable due to the direct accusations of fraudulent conduct in patent procurement, which could lead to significant implications for patent validity and enforceability. The allegations of Casale "wielding that patent" and making "false and misleading statements" about being the sole legitimate source for low-carbon ammonia technology underscore the competitive stakes in the sustainable chemical production industry. While specific IPR linkage is not explicitly detailed in the provided search results, the strong focus on prior art and patent validity challenges suggests a potential for, or relevance to, PTAB proceedings. The selection of the Southern District of Texas, specifically the Galveston Division, for this litigation could be influenced by a variety of factors including the parties' operations or strategic considerations, though the specific reasons for this venue are not well-sourced in the provided information.

The patent infringement litigation, Topsoe, Inc. v. Casale US, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-00033, was filed in the Southern District of Texas and remains active. The case involves patent 11286168.

Here are the key legal developments in chronological order:

• 2024-01-31 – Filing of Complaint: Topsoe, Inc. filed its complaint against Casale US, Inc. and Casale SA, initiating the patent infringement litigation.
• 2024-04-18 – Referral to Magistrate Judge: All pretrial matters in the case were referred to United States Magistrate Judge Andrew M. Edison.
• 2025-01-17 – Discovery Ruling: Magistrate Judge Andrew M. Edison issued an Opinion and Order concerning a Joint Omnibus Discovery Letter Brief, addressing various discovery disputes between the parties.
• 2025-09-02 – Magistrate Judge's Recommendation on Motions to Dismiss: Magistrate Judge Edison filed a memorandum and recommendation suggesting that Defendant Casale SA's motions to dismiss (Dkts. 31, 64) be denied, and Defendant Casale US, Inc.'s motion to dismiss (Dkt. 34) be granted.
• 2025-09-16 – Objections to Recommendation: Casale SA filed objections to Magistrate Judge Edison's memorandum and recommendation.
• 2025-11-25 – Order Adopting Recommendation (Initial Motions to Dismiss): The District Court (Judge Jeffrey V. Brown) adopted Magistrate Judge Edison's recommendation. As a result, Casale SA's motions to dismiss (Dkts. 31, 64) were denied, and Casale US, Inc.'s motion to dismiss (Dkt. 34) was granted, leading to the dismissal of Plaintiff's claims against Casale US, Inc. without prejudice.
• 2026-04-27 – Magistrate Judge's Recommendation on Counterclaim Motion to Dismiss: Magistrate Judge Edison filed a memorandum and recommendation suggesting that the motion to dismiss filed by Counter-Defendants Topsoe, Inc. and Topsoe A/S (Dkt. 195), aimed at Casale's counterclaims, be denied.
• 2026-05-11 – Objections to Recommendation (Counterclaims): Topsoe filed objections to Magistrate Judge Edison's memorandum and recommendation concerning their motion to dismiss counterclaims.
• 2026-05-18 – Order Adopting Recommendation (Counterclaim Motion to Dismiss): The District Court (Judge Jeffrey V. Brown) adopted Magistrate Judge Edison's recommendation, denying Topsoe's motion to dismiss (Dkt. 195) the counterclaims.

Outcome/Present Posture:
The case is currently active. While claims against Casale US, Inc. have been dismissed, the litigation against Casale SA is proceeding. Initial pleadings and motions to dismiss have been largely resolved, and the court has addressed discovery matters. As of the current date, no parallel Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) IPR or PGR proceedings for patent 11286168 were identified through public searches.

Topsoe, Inc., the plaintiff in 3:24-cv-00033 in the Texas Southern District Court, is represented by counsel from the following firms:

• Patterson + Sheridan LLP

  • Todd Patterson (Lead Counsel)
    • Firm: Patterson + Sheridan LLP, Houston, TX office.
    • Note: Co-founder of Patterson + Sheridan LLP, focuses on patent litigation, prosecution, and counseling, particularly in the chemical, mechanical, and oil & gas industries.
  • B. Todd Patterson (Lead Counsel)
    • Firm: Patterson + Sheridan LLP, Houston, TX office.
    • Note: Similar to Todd Patterson, involved in all aspects of intellectual property law, including patent litigation.

• Jackson Walker LLP

  • Nathaniel "Than" Wood (Local Counsel)
    • Firm: Jackson Walker LLP, Houston, TX office.
    • Note: Focuses on intellectual property litigation and other complex commercial disputes, with experience in a variety of technologies.
  • Lauren E. Harris (Local Counsel)
    • Firm: Jackson Walker LLP, Houston, TX office.
    • Note: Practices complex commercial litigation, including intellectual property disputes.

Note: The specific roles (e.g., lead counsel vs. local counsel) are inferred based on typical litigation structures and the nature of the firms involved. Detailed docket entries often specify the first appearance and pro hac vice admissions, which would further clarify lead and local counsel roles.

Counsel of Record for Defendant(s) in Topsoe, Inc. v. Casale US, Inc. et al

As of May 25, 2026, a comprehensive list of the counsel of record representing the defendants, Casale US, Inc. and Casale S.A., in the patent infringement case 3:24-cv-00033 in the Southern District of Texas, is not readily available through public web searches. Information regarding specific attorney appearances and associated firms for the defendants in this case appears to be behind subscription-based legal research platforms (e.g., PacerMonitor, RPX Insight) which were indicated as requiring a subscription to view counsel representation details.

Publicly accessible snippets confirm the case title, court, and the defendants, Casale US, Inc. and Casale S.A.. However, specific docket entries or court opinions that explicitly name the individual attorneys and their firms representing the defendants in this patent infringement matter are not discoverable through the general web searches conducted.

Therefore, without direct access to the full docket via PACER or a similar subscribed service, the detailed information on the defendant's counsel of record cannot be provided.