US 10684078

I'll search for docket/litigation information on this specific patent number before summarizing.

No CAFC docket hits so far. Let me check for any litigation/PTAB activity and try to retrieve the full claim text.

Let me try to retrieve the complete claim set, since the claims text I have is truncated mid-claim 1.

US 10,684,078 B1 — Analyst Summary

Source of record: full patent text at https://patents.google.com/patent/US10684078/en (fetched 2026-09-24), corroborated by https://patents.justia.com/patent/[10684078](/patent/10684078) and https://www.ipqwery.com/ipowner/en/owner/ip/[824715](/patent/824715)-macrae-technologies-inc.html

Bibliographic data (as literally recorded)

Representative classifications: B22D19/0072 (casting around objects to make integrated channels); F28D15/02; F27D9/00 groups (furnace cooling, copper/copper-alloy high-thermoconductivity elements); G06F30/23 and G06F30/28 (FEM and CFD simulation); B23K2103/12 (copper alloys).

Abstract (verbatim)

"Computer modelling methods and foundry methods for copper-nickel coolant pipes cast-in-copper coolers are combined. First, Computational Fluid Dynamics and/or Finite Element Analysis steps verify geometric computer aided design models and materials choices, point-by-point heat distribution, and heat flows. And second, casting steps to commit an acceptable last thickness iteration of a thermal buffer part in simulation to casting it in a foundry. In the foundry, casting conditions are empirically developed to yield all but slight, unclustered bonding imperfections at a concentric diffusion interface of the pipes and surrounding solidified casting that improve the thermal conductivity of furnace-block coolers that incorporate coolant pipes. The combined methods verify in simulation that operational thermal stresses at the pipe-casting interface stay in-bounds of material stress limits, and that the peak temperatures on the hot face do not rise above 450° C."

Plain-language overview of the independent claim

⚠️ Important limitation on completeness: the claim set supplied in the authoritative full text is truncated. The record shows "Claims (9)" but the text of claim 1 breaks off mid-limitation ("testing with a non-invasive, non-destructive…"), and claims 2–9 are not present in the retrieved text. I therefore cannot paraphrase claims 2–9, and I cannot confirm from the supplied record whether any claim other than claim 1 is independent. I am not going to reconstruct them.

Claim 1 (method for the geometric design and subsequent manufacturing of a copper furnace-block cooler) recites, as far as the text is readable:

1. Cast in a foundry, but simulate first. Before casting, the design is verified by Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) and/or Finite Element Analysis (FEA) modelling of the particular geometric design, confirming that heat-removal capacity from the included hot face handles an average heat flux in excess of 25 kW/m².
2. Solidify a front copper cover / thermal buffer of specified minimum thickness. The buffer is solidified from the hot liquid pour that forms the casting, at a minimum of about 25 mm thick if the hot face is patterned, or about 38 mm if the hot face is not patterned (patterning being ridges, grooves, pockets, etc. for holding brick/refractory).
3. Simulate even heat distribution to a Schedule-40 CuNi pipe circuit located inside the casting, which is described as fused in its entirety along a CuNi–Cu interface between the pipe and the casting.
4. Test with a non-invasive, non-destructive [method] — the sentence is cut off at this point in the record.

So, in plain terms, claim 1 is a design-plus-manufacture method claim that couples (a) pre-casting CFD/FEA verification of the ≥25 kW/m² heat-flux duty, (b) a numeric thermal-buffer thickness rule keyed to whether the hot face is patterned, (c) solidification of a cast copper cover around Schedule-40 CuNi coolant pipe with a fully fused CuNi–Cu interface, and (d) an inspection/testing step whose specific character is not visible in the text I have.

Supporting disclosure worth noting (context, not claim scope)

• The specification is explicit that CuNi pipe walls cannot be thinner than ASTM Schedule-40 because burn-through occurs during casting, and that cooling the pipes during casting is strictly prohibited (it interferes with crystal-grain formation at the interface). This is framed as a correction of the inventor's own earlier teaching that "ASTM Schedule-40 pipe, or thinner" could be used.
• Quantitative positions: interface diffusion zone ~100 µm thick transitioning continuously from ~67.5% Cu/32.5% Ni pipe wall to near-100% Cu casting; QC acceptance threshold of ≥85% fused surface area (i.e., <15% slight, unclustered non-bonded); minimum internal gap of 5/16″ (7.9 mm) between pipes and any casting surface; hot face limited to 450° C; coolant velocity 0.9–4 m/s.
• Preferred materials named: CuNi UNS C70600, C71300, C71500, C71640; electrolytic copper UNS C11000 deoxidized during casting toward ~UNS 81200; thermowells and inlets/outlets in ASTM Schedule-80.

Litigation / CAFC check — negative result

• I found no CAFC 2026 docket, no PTAB proceeding, and no district-court complaint asserting US 10,684,078 in the searches performed. I cannot confirm the absence of such proceedings with confidence; I can only report that nothing surfaced.
• The search did surface a related but distinct case involving the same parties: New Berry, Inc. (d/b/a Berry Metal Company) v. Smith, MacRae Technologies, Inc., and Allan J. MacRae, N.D. Ind. Case No. 2:19-cv-00159 (filed 2019-05-02) — https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/[9693854](/patent/9693854)/new-berry-inc-v-smith/. That case asserts US 9,121,076 and US 10,222,124, not 10,684,078 (see complaint exhibits listed in the docket). Cecal Industria e Comercio Ltda. appears there as the accused stave manufacturer — consistent with the 2021 license assignment recorded against the '078 patent, but that is an inference, not a proven link to this patent.
• A search hit titled "Petitioner's Demonstratives" (BMW of North America v. Foras Technologies, IPR2024-01346/-01347) is unrelated to this patent and should be disregarded.

Foreign family / continuations (for completeness)

PCT/US2020/015282 → WO2020263343A1; EP3887554A1; CA3145190A1; BR112021013233; KR102576798B1 / KR20230047504A / KR20250105684A (Korean title: "Improving long-term stabilization in overall thermal conduction of block coolers with cast-in coolant pipes"); ZA202104071B. US continuations/related grants include US10982902B2 and US12259186B2.

Explicit uncertainty flags

1. The claim text in the authoritative record is truncated mid-claim 1; claims 2–9 were not retrievable. Any statement about independent vs. dependent claim structure beyond claim 1 would be speculation.
2. The priority picture is internally inconsistent across fields in the same Google Patents page (prior-art date 2019-05-24 vs. a 2018-09-14 "priority to US16/642,903" entry). I have reported both without resolving them.
3. Legal status, ownership transfers, and expiration dates are recorded assertions, not legal conclusions.
4. No authoritative confirmation of any 2026 CAFC activity for this patent number; my searches returned nothing on point.
5. Note the date inconsistency in the task framing (stated "April 26, 2026" vs. operating date 2026-09-29); docket results reflect whatever the searched sources held at query time.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 10684078 across patent litigation sources.

Initial results are off-target. Let me search more specifically across litigation databases.

No litigation found for US 10,684,078

Based on my searches of patent‑litigation sources (including the Unified Patents litigation portal, PTAB/PTACTS filings, RPX/insight litigation documents, Justia patent data, Google Patents, and general litigation reporting), I found no district‑court litigation, ITC proceeding, PTAB proceeding, or CAFC appeal involving U.S. Patent 10,684,078.

Important caveats about the searches

• My searches for the literal identifier "10684078" and for "US 10,684,078" returned no case records naming this patent. The queries that did return case documents involved different patents, and I am not conflating them:

  • A case involving U.S. Patent 12,133,078 B2 (a "'078 Patent" cited in a declaratory‑judgment complaint re: Yondr/Graham Dugoni and Nicholas Martin) — this is a different patent number and unrelated to US 10,684,078.
  • Various PTAB/Unified Patents documents citing unrelated patents (e.g., US 9,253,239; US 7,454,002; US 8,605,794; US 10,046,696). None are US 10,684,078.
  • The "Exhibit 2013 … Intertrust Technologies Corporation" petition and other results contain the string "106" and "'078" independently, but not the patent at issue.

• I was unable to reach the Unified Patents caselist page or PACER directly within my tool limits, so I cannot rule out an obscure or very recent filing that is not yet indexed in the sources I could reach. My conclusion is therefore based on best available public data, not a certified full‑docket search.

What I did find relating to the patent (non‑litigation, for context)

The Google Patents record for US 10,684,078 B1 shows only assignment and licensing activity, not lawsuits:

• 2021‑05‑21 — Assignment to CECAL INDUSTRIA E COMMERCIO LTDA, recorded as a "LICENSE (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS)", assignor MacRae Technologies, Inc.
• 2025‑08‑27 — Assignment of assignor's interest back to Allan J. MacRae from MacRae Technologies, Inc.
• The patent is currently listed as Active, with an anticipated expiration of 2039‑05‑24.
• It is related to a patent family including US 16/642,903 (US 12,259,186 B2), WO 2020/263343 A1, EP 3887554 A1, and KR 102576798 B1.

Bottom line

• Plaintiff(s): None identified
• Defendant(s): None identified
• Jurisdiction: N/A
• Case number: N/A
• Filing date: N/A
• Outcome/status: No known litigation.

If you need a certified check, I'd recommend a direct Docket Navigator, Lex Machina, or PACER/Delaware and N.D. Ill. docket search keyed to the patent number 10,684,078 and to patent owner MacRae Technologies, Inc. / Allan J. MacRae, since my result rests on the publicly indexed sources reachable in this session and not on a live full‑docket query.

I'll verify the structured "no proceedings" signal against live sources before finalizing.

Let me run additional targeted checks for litigation and any recently-filed challenges.

A few more checks to close out the possibility of a recently-filed or not-yet-indexed challenge.

Proceedings overview

Zero AIA trial proceedings on file. The USPTO Open Data Portal returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM proceeding naming US 10,684,078, and independent web checks across PTAB petition/decision materials (PTAB E2E, P-TACTS, Docket Alarm PTAB dockets, CourtListener) surfaced no petition, institution decision, Final Written Decision, or appeal referencing this patent or its patent owner.[^1] There is therefore no claim-level outcome to report: no claims have been canceled, no proceedings have settled, and no institution decision has issued. The bottom line for a defendant: this is not a hardened patent that has survived two IPRs — it is an IPR-virgin patent with all 9 claims intact and entirely untested at the Board, which cuts both ways (no roadmap for you, but also no invalidity findings you can borrow and no § 315(e)(2) estoppel on the patent owner's side).

---

Proceedings on file

None. Reporting a fabricated proceeding number here would be worse than reporting silence, so the sections below are deliberately empty of the templated per-proceeding fields.

Flag for the file: I could not confirm even a discretionary-denial or denied-institution decision. In my experience, well-asserted industrial patents almost always draw at least one petition. The absence here is a substantive signal — see the strategic summary.

Related adversarial activity (NOT a PTAB proceeding — context only)

Berry Metal Company et al. v. Todd Smith, MacRae Technologies, Inc., et al. — N.D. Ind. No. 2:19-cv-00159

• Type: District court action — patent infringement and trade-secret misappropriation. This is not an AIA trial. It is included only because it is the only identified litigation involving this patent owner, and it is the most plausible source of a future IPR.
• Filed: 2019 (N.D. Ind., Case No. 2:19-cv-00159-JD-MGG per the venue/jurisdiction order on the docket).[^2]
• What it involves: Berry alleged that former-relationship inventor Todd Smith misappropriated Berry stave-cooler trade secrets, that MacRae Technologies obtained patent rights derived from them, and that MacRae licensed the accused stave-cooler technology to Brazilian manufacturer Cecal Indústria e Comércio Ltda., which displaced Berry on a U.S. Steel Gary Works stave-replacement bid.
• Why it matters to the '078 analysis: the court's order on personal jurisdiction notes MacRae Technologies' connection to Cecal "as a co-assignee on a March 2019 patent application." The '078's own assignment record shows a 2021-05-21 license to CECAL INDUSTRIA E COMERCIO LTDA and a 2025-08-27 reassignment from MacRae Technologies, Inc. back to Allan J. MacRae personally.
• Caveat — do not over-read this: I have not verified that US 10,684,078 is an asserted patent in that case. The docket excerpts I retrieved discuss "the infringing cooling stove patent" generically and center on stave-cooler subject matter, whereas the '078 claims are directed to methods for geometric design and manufacture of a CuNi-pipe-cast-in-copper block cooler. Treat the linkage as unconfirmed.
• Defensive value: none directly. Its value is as a prior-art and prior-inventorship hunting ground. A trade-secret/derivation record from a former employer relationship is exactly the kind of evidence that produces § 102(f)/derivation, on-sale, or public-use attacks that the PTAB cannot hear (see estoppel discussion below).

---

Strategic summary

Claim status of US 10,684,078. The patent issued 2020-06-16 with 9 claims and, per the structured record, remains Active with an anticipated expiration of 2039-05-24. Because no IPR or PGR was ever instituted, every one of claims 1–9 is UNTESTED at the PTAB — none canceled, none sustained, none narrowed. There is no FWD to quote and no claim-level disposition to rely on. Claim 1 as published is a method claim: casting in a foundry, preceded by CFD/FEA simulation of a design whose hot-face heat-removal capacity exceeds 25 kW/m², solidifying a front copper cover/thermal buffer at "a minimum of about 25 mm thick if the included hot face is patterned, or about 38 mm if the included hot face is not patterned," from a hot liquid pour, simulating even heat flow to a circuit of Schedule-40 CuNi alloy coolant pipe fused along a CuNi—Cu interface, followed by non-invasive/non-destructive testing (the published text of claim 1 is truncated at that element). Note the claim's central limitations are numerical ranges (25 mm / 38 mm / 25 kW/m²) and a simulation step — a favorable target profile for an obviousness or § 112 written-description/enablement attack, and an unfavorable profile for a plaintiff's infringement case, because it must prove the manufacturing method was practiced, not merely that a cooler exists.

Estoppel landscape — the good news and the trap. Because no petition was ever filed, no § 315(e)(2) estoppel attaches to anyone. For a defendant picked up today, the full invalidity toolkit is available: § 102 and § 103 on patents and printed publications and — critically — the grounds the Board cannot consider at all, namely § 102(a)(1) public use, on-sale, and "otherwise available to the public" art, plus all § 112 grounds, in district court or the ITC. That is a materially better position than a defendant facing a patent that has already run the IPR gauntlet, where prior-art arguments have been estoppel-stripped. The trap is § 315(b): if you were served with a complaint alleging infringement more than one year ago, you are time-barred from filing your own IPR. Check the service date first — it often decides the strategy before the merits do.

Pattern signals. There is no petitioner, no aggregator, and no pattern. I found no Unified Patents, RPX, or other defensive-aggregator filing against this patent owner, and no second petition, joinder, or parallel-petition strategy for anyone to learn from. The relevant patterns are instead (i) a single-inventor, small-portfolio owner (Allan J. MacRae / MacRae Technologies, Inc., Hayward, CA — roughly 14 IP assets, first patent 2007, last 2024) in a very thin market (a handful of global stave/block-cooler suppliers: Berry Metal, Paul Wurth, Systems Spray-Cooled, and others), and (ii) an international family — EP 3887554, KR 102576798, CA 3145190, BR 112021013233, ZA 2021/04071 — meaning foreign counterparts, not U.S. PTAB proceedings, are where this owner's enforcement energies may have gone. Also note the 2025-08-27 reassignment back to the individual inventor, which changes who signs a demand letter and who must be named in any future validity challenge.

The honest read on the absence of IPRs. A niche industrial patent with a small defendant pool, sold into furnaces where the end user (a steel mill) — not the infringing manufacturer — is often the customer, will not generate a thick volume of IPRs. That likely explains the silence better than any inference about patent strength. But it is still true that the claims have never been tested in an adversarial validity forum, which means their true scope and strength are unknown. Do not treat the "no IPRs" fact as evidence the patent is strong.

---

Recommended next steps

1. Confirm the absence yourself before relying on it. Pull the patent's PTAB record through USPTO PTAB E2E / Patent Trial and Appeal Board End-to-End and the PTAB Decisions search, and run the patent number, the application number (16/712,912), and the patent owner name. Re-check three to six months from now — a petition can appear at any time, and a freshly filed petition will not be indexed immediately.
2. Because there is no FWD, you have nothing to cite and nothing to quote. There is no disposition to link to, no canceled-claim shortcut, and no "claim 1 is dead" argument. Any validity position must be built from scratch on the '078 claim set.
3. Calendar the § 315(b) one-year bar immediately. Run the complaint service date. If you are inside the year, budget for an IPR now — the strongest art here is likely a § 103 combination against the 25 mm/38 mm thermal-buffer ranges and the CFD/FEA simulation limitation, plus a § 112 written-description challenge to the numeric ranges. If you are outside the year, your forum is district court or the ITC, where § 102(a)(1) public-use and on-sale art (including anything from the Berry/MacRae/Cecal dispute, if it is truly connected to this family) remains fully available.
4. Mine the related litigation record. The Berry Metal v. MacRae/Smith docket (N.D. Ind. 2:19-cv-00159) is the single most promising source of derivation, prior-inventorship, and public-disclosure evidence. Get the full docket via CourtListener or PACER before you commit to a validity theory — but verify first whether the '078 is actually in issue there.
5. Check the family for parallel proceedings. A challenge abroad (EPO opposition to EP 3887554, or a KR/BR/CA action) would not bind the PTAB, but it produces prior-art citations, expert reports, and claim-construction reasoning you can reuse cheaply.
6. On the § 102(f)/inventorship question: if the trade-secret allegations in the Berry case genuinely reach the '078's subject matter, that is a district-court-only, correction-of-inventorship/de-rivation theory that the Board cannot hear — it is a far more distinctive weapon than a routine § 103 IPR, and it is available precisely because no IPR has consumed it.

---

Sources consulted: US 10,684,078 on Google Patents (authoritative full text, claims, assignment/legal-events record, family members); USPTO ODP structured PTAB-proceedings block (canonical, empty); USPTO P-TACTS / PTAB E2E and PTAB Decisions searches (no hits); CourtListener and Justia docket materials for N.D. Ind. 2:19-cv-00159 (Berry Metal v. Smith/MacRae/Cecal); MacRae Technologies portfolio listings (Justia Patents, onscope, ipqwery).

[^1]: My web searches returned numerous IPR/PGR materials, but every proceeding they surfaced was for an unrelated patent and/or an unrelated patent owner (e.g., '144, '536, '684, '808, '393, '499/'731, '507, '563, '604 patents). None named US 10,684,078 or MacRae Technologies. I am reporting this as a negative result, not as proof that no filing exists — a very recent petition may simply be unindexed.

[^2]: Case number and court taken from the district court's order on personal jurisdiction and venue reproduced at cases.justia.com. The order addresses Rule 12(b)(2)/(3) motions and limited jurisdictional discovery; it is not a merits or validity ruling, and it says nothing about US 10,684,078.

I'll research the assignment record and ownership history before reconstructing the chain. Let me pull the available sources.

I could not retrieve the Assignment Center's reel/frame fields directly (the site is a JavaScript single-page app and no indexed mirror returned record-level data for this patent number). Everything below is grounded in the Google Patents legal-events record supplied in the patent text plus public corporate sources; I have flagged every field I could not verify rather than inventing it.

Inventors

• Allan J. MacRae — sole named inventor on US 10,684,078. No joint inventors.
• Employer at filing: MacRae Technologies Inc. (the assignee of record at filing, 2019-12-12). The company is named after the inventor; public records (EP 2488669 owner entry, ipqwery owner records) list MacRae alternately at Hayward, CA and Canada, consistent with him being the founder/principal rather than an employee-inventor of a large corporate R&D department.
• Unusual patterns: None of the classic fire-sale precursor (no mass inventor exodus — there is only one inventor, and he is also the owner). Note that a related patent, US 10,954,574, lists a second inventor, Carlo Geronimi, but Geronimi is not an inventor on this patent. Inventor MacRae has authored a long family of stave-cooler patents (US 8,834,784; 9,963,754; 10,247,477; 10,364,475; 10,393,438; 10,533,802; 10,870,898; 10,982,902; 12,259,186) all filed 2011–2020, i.e. continuous, ongoing inventive activity rather than a dumped portfolio.

Original assignee

• MacRae Technologies Inc — named as assignee on the issued patent and as the applicant of record at the 2019-12-12 filing.
• Business: Engineering/technology firm designing liquid-cooled copper and cast-iron stave coolers and furnace-block coolers for pyrometallurgical furnaces (blast furnaces, flash smelting, electric arc, etc.). This is an operating technology business, not an IP-holding vehicle.
• Product embodiment: The claims are method claims (CFD/FEA-verified geometric design + foundry casting of a CuNi-pipe-in-copper cooler). Manufacture appears to be performed under licence by CECAL Indústria e Comércio Ltda (Lorena, São Paulo, Brazil — founded 1971, ~200–270 employees, a genuine copper-cooler foundry). Public owner records (ipqwery) show US 10,954,574 jointly attributed to MacRae Technologies, Inc. and CECAL Indústria e Comércio Ltda., corroborating a real commercial manufacturing relationship rather than a shell arrangement.
• Status: Appears to be an operating concern, though the 2025-08-27 recorded transfer of rights back to the individual inventor (below) suggests either an internal IP reorganization or a gradual wind-down of the corporate entity. I cannot confirm which — no dissolution/bankruptcy filing was located.

Assignment timeline

The Assignment Center exposes only two post-issuance recorded events for this patent. I could not retrieve their reel/frame numbers or the correspondent of record from any source I could access; I am listing them by recording date and conveyance type exactly as the Google Patents legal-events record shows. The pre-issuance inventor→company assignment (if separately recorded) is not shown as a discrete event; Google Patents simply lists the applicant as MacRae Technologies Inc at filing.

• Execution date not disclosed / recorded 2021-05-21 — Reel/frame: not retrieved

  • Conveyance: LICENSE ("see document for details") — this is a licence, not an assignment of title.
  • Assignor: MacRae Technologies, Inc.
  • Assignee: CECAL Indústria e Comércio Ltda.
  • Correspondent: not retrievable.
  • Context: Commercial manufacturing/technology licence to a Brazilian copper-cooler foundry partner — technology transfer within the supply chain, not a fire-sale and not a transfer to an asserter. (A licence recorded against the patent does not move ownership; MacRae Technologies/Allan MacRae remain the title holder.)

• Execution date not disclosed / recorded 2025-08-27 — Reel/frame: not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignor's Interest
  • Assignor: MacRae Technologies, Inc.
  • Assignee: MacRae, Allan J. (the sole named inventor)
  • Correspondent: not retrievable.
  • Context: Return/transfer of rights from the operating company back to the individual founder-inventor — best characterized as an internal reorganization / IP repatriation to the natural person. It is not a transfer to a licensing-only LLC.

Correspondent note (flagged, not a finding): The only attorney/agent firm I can document anywhere in MacRae's patent family is Main Law Cafe (Hedgesville, WV, US), recorded as the attorney/agent of record on his earlier US 6,280,681 ("Furnace-wall cooling block"). Because I could not obtain the correspondent of record for either 2021 or 2025 event, I cannot state whether Main Law Cafe recurs as the assignment correspondent — treat this only as a lead to verify manually, not as a recurrence finding.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10684078
    2019 : Filed by MacRae Technologies Inc
         : Assignee of record at filing
    2020 : Patent issued
    2021 : License recorded to CECAL
    2025 : Rights assigned back to Allan J MacRae

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. The only two recorded events move rights between MacRae Technologies Inc (an operating engineering firm), CECAL Ltda (a real, 50-year-old Brazilian foundry), and the individual inventor. No "IP / Holdings / Licensing / Ventures" entity, no registered-agent address, no single-member Delaware/Texas LLC appears.

2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. Neither MacRae Technologies, Inc., CECAL Indústria e Comércio Ltda., nor Allan J. MacRae matches Acacia, Marathon, Intellectual Ventures, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Conversant/Mosaid, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, or any Spangenberg entity.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear. I could not retrieve the correspondent of record for either the 2021-05-21 or 2025-08-27 event, so recurrence cannot be tested. Marked unclear, not present — absence of retrieved data is not evidence of absence.

4. Cascading transfers — not present. Only two recorded events in over four years (2021 and 2025), and they run in opposite directions (out-licence to a manufacturer, then repatriation to the inventor). No chain of consecutive LLC-to-LLC hops within 24 months.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. I found no infringement litigation naming US 10,684,078, and neither recorded 2021 nor 2025 event is tied to a suit.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. No Chapter 7/11 filing by MacRae Technologies Inc was located, and the 2025 transfer is to the founder-inventor, the opposite of a distressed sale to a third party.

7. Privateering — not present. The 2021 licence runs to CECAL, a manufacturer that produces the coolers (an operating partner), not to an assertion vehicle; there is no indication of an entity litigating on MacRae's behalf.

8. Defensive aggregator — not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN. Ownership ends with the individual inventor.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

The ownership record shows a genuine operating-company chain — filing by MacRae Technologies Inc (2019-12-12), a manufacturing licence recorded to the real Brazilian foundry CECAL Indústria e Comércio Ltda on 2021-05-21, and a 2025-08-27 repatriation of rights back to the founder-inventor Allan J. MacRae. Not one of the eight NPE signals is present, and there is no litigation on record; the caveat is that the litigation prong of this verdict is unverified (no suit found), so read the label as "real operating company owns it, no NPE pattern," not as a confirmed enforcement campaign. I could not retrieve reel/frame or correspondent data — verify at the USPTO Assignment Center (https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/) and Google Patents (https://patents.google.com/patent/US10684078/en), specifically re-checking whether the 2021 event is a bare licence versus a co-ownership grant, since that distinction matters for standing.

I'll research US Patent 10684078 and its prior-art citations. Let me start with targeted searches.

Let me get the citation details from the patent's front page (References Cited) and related records.

I have the key citation data. Now let me verify each cited reference and pull the patent's claims and the PCT/EP search report prior art.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 10,684,078 B1

1. Patent identified

Important framing for § 102. Claim 1 as printed requires, in combination: (a) pre-casting CFD/FEA simulation of a geometric design whose hot-face heat-removal capacity is at an average heat flux > 25 kW/m²; (b) solidifying a front copper cover / thermal buffer ≥ ~25 mm (patterned hot face) or ~38 mm (un-patterned) from the hot liquid pour; (c) CFD/FEA simulation of even heat distribution to a Schedule-40 CuNi coolant pipe fused along a CuNi–Cu interface; and (d) a non-invasive, non-destructive test step. Because of these simulation and numerically-defined process elements, none of the references below appears to disclose every element of claim 1, and strict § 102 anticipation is therefore not established on the record reviewed. The cited references are best characterized as § 102 background/structural art and, for the process combination, § 103 obviousness art. I flag this rather than force an anticipation mapping that the references do not support.

---

2. Patent citations listed on the face of US 10,684,078 (References Cited, 56)

Four U.S. patent documents are cited (per the Justia reproduction of the (56) references):

(a) US 3,853,309 — Widmer

• Full citation: Widmer, C., Components using cast-in cooling tubes, US 3,853,309 A.
• Dates: Filed 1972‑03‑20; granted/published 1974‑12‑10.
• Description: A casting for heat transfer between the casting body and a fluid, e.g., a tuyere or water‑cooled cooling element for a blast furnace. A thin-walled, flexible corrugated tube is cast into metal. The reference expressly states the tube may be stainless steel or cupro‑nickel and the metal cast around it may be a copper alloy. It criticizes plain tubes for poor fusion/intimate contact across a large surface area — i.e., it addresses the same "bonding/gap at the pipe–casting interface" problem the '078 patent is built on.
• § 102 relevance: This is the closest structural reference to the casting aspect. It discloses a CuNi-tube-in-copper-alloy cast component and recognizes the interface-contact problem generally. It is potentially anticipatory reading only if a claim were drafted to the bare concept of a CuNi pipe cast in copper — it does not disclose the CFD/FEA modelling, the 25/38 mm thermal-buffer thickness, the > 25 kW/m² criterion, or the NDT step of claim 1. No clean § 102 anticipation; strongest as § 103 art for the casting sub-steps.

(b) US 6,280,681 B1 — MacRae

• Full citation: MacRae, A. J., US 6,280,681 B1.
• Dates: Granted/published 2001‑08‑28.
• Description: Same-inventor (self-cited) earlier work in the cast-copper-cooling-block field. I was not able to verify the exact title/abstract of this specific number from the search results returned, and I will not fabricate it. Based on the citation pattern (it is cited alongside the 2011 MacRae application and the MacRae conference papers on cast copper cooling blocks), it is the inventor's foundational cast-copper-block/pipe work.
• § 102 relevance: Same-inventor disclosures can be prior art against later claims unless excepted (e.g., § 102(b)(2)(A)–(C) common-ownership/inventor exceptions, which are fact-specific here). Because it predates the '078 priority date by ~18 years, it is relevant § 102/§ 103 art to the extent it discloses cast copper blocks with coolant pipes. Not verified to disclose the CFD/FEA or buffer-thickness limitations.

(c) US 9,121,076 B2 — Smith et al.

• Full citation: Smith, T., et al., US 9,121,076 B2.
• Dates: Granted/published 2015‑09‑01.
• Description: Cooling element / stave-cooler technology for metallurgical furnaces in which pipes are set in a copper housing or block. The '078 prosecution also treated related Smith subject matter (e.g., stave coolers with individual pipe circuits housed in copper), which is representative of the closest commercial state of the art in cast/wrought copper furnace coolers. Exact title/abstract of US 9,121,076 B2 itself was not confirmable from the returned search results; flagged as unverified.
• § 102 relevance: Third-party prior art under § 102(a)(1)/(a)(2). Relevant to cooler architecture (copper body, internal pipe circuits, inlet/outlet manifolds) but not shown to disclose the claimed simulation-based design method or the specific thermal-buffer dimensions, so no § 102 anticipation of claim 1.

(d) US 2011/0088600 A1 — MacRae

• Full citation: MacRae, A. J., US 2011/0088600 A1 (published application).
• Dates: Published 2011‑04‑21.
• Description: Same-inventor published application in the cast-copper-copper-cooling-block / cast-in coolant pipe space (the "prior work" family the '078 specification references when it says the inventor previously taught that "Schedule-40 or thinner" CuNi pipe could be used — a teaching the '078 patent then corrects, stating Schedule-40 cannot be gone thinner than).
• § 102 relevance: The '078 patent affirmatively distinguishes this line of work (the specification states the earlier "Schedule-40, or thinner" teaching "turned out not to be true in practice"). That express disavowal/distinction insulates claim 1 from this reference on the wall-thickness point and supports non-anticipation.

---

3. Non-patent literature cited (also on the (56) list)

These are the NPL references reproduced from the patent's citation record. They are same-inventor/same-field publications and an ISR:

1. A. J. MacRae, "Pipe Coil Selection for Cast Copper Cooling Blocks," Sulfide Smelting 2002: Proceedings of a Symposium sponsored by the EPD of TMS, 2002 TMS Annual Meeting, Seattle, WA, Feb. 17–21, 2002 (ISBN 0873395255). — Pipe-coil selection for cast copper blocks.
2. A. J. MacRae, "New Technology for the Manufacture of Cast Copper Cooling Blocks," Kvaerner E&C, ISS 59th Electric Furnace Conference, Phoenix, AZ, Nov. 2001 (also cited with dates Nov. 11–14, 2001). — Foundry manufacture of cast copper cooling blocks.
3. G. Slaven, A. MacRae & L. Valentas, "The Implementation of Ultralife™ Copper Casting Technology in the EAF," AISE Annual Convention, Pittsburgh, PA, Sep. 28 – Oct. 1, 2003. (Applicant's remark: reference used "well bonded" but did not indicate bonding could be 100%.)
4. A. MacRae & J. Lenz, "S-Furnace Roof Modifications," Falconbridge Limited, Timmins, Ontario, JOM 58 (2006). (Remark: Cu‑Ni pipe coil for maximum bond between pipes and cast copper.)
5. A. MacRae, "New Technology for the Manufacture of Cast Copper Cooling Blocks," ISS 59th Electric Furnace Conference, Phoenix, AZ, Nov. 11–14, 2001. (Remark: de-bonding of pipe from copper due to thermal cycling is reduced due to a combination of improved bonding.)
6. M. W. Kennedy, A. MacRae, R. T. Jones, L. Kolbeinsen, P. Nos & A. Filzwieser, "Some Considerations for Safer Furnace Cooling" — identified in the record as Reference D2 in the EPO Search and Written Opinion.
7. International Search Report and Written Opinion of the ISA (EPO), Apr. 3, 2020, for International Application PCT/US2020/015282 (MacRae Technologies, Inc.; applicant's ref. MLF 657‑48 PCT).

§ 102 relevance of NPL: As printed, the applicant's own remarks concede these references describe "bonding"/"well bonded" and improved bonding, but the applicant distinguishes them on the ground that none taught bonding could be complete / only slightly incomplete and unclustered (<15%) across the whole interface, nor the quantitative design conditions. That concession-plus-distinction again points to § 103 rather than § 102.

---

4. Related-document note (not a citation in '078, but context)

The Google Patents family records show EP 1 309 731 B1 — Cast-in pipe and cooling block as a family/related document, with an EPO opposition filed by Danieli Corus BV, ultimately rejected (status: opposition rejected, ~2010). This is useful context for the field's contentiousness but is not part of the '078 References Cited list, and I do not treat it as a § 102 reference for '078.

---

5. Bottom-line assessment

• No reference among the citations, on the record reviewed, discloses every element of claim 1 (pre-casting CFD/FEA verification of > 25 kW/m² capability; the 25–32 mm / ~38 mm thermal-buffer minimum; Schedule-40 CuNi pipe fused along the CuNi–Cu interface; empirical casting-condition development; NDT verification). Strict § 102 anticipation is therefore not supported for claim 1 or its dependents.
• US 3,853,309 (Widmer) is the most structurally material reference — the same "CuNi tube cast in copper alloy" concept and the same interface-fusion problem — and is the strongest § 103 combination candidate against the casting portion of the claims.
• US 6,280,681 and US 2011/0088600 (MacRae) are same-inventor references; their availability as prior art depends on the § 102(b)(2) inventor/common-ownership exceptions, which I cannot resolve without the prosecution file.
• US 9,121,076 (Smith et al.) is the principal third-party art on cooler architecture (copper body with internal pipe circuits), relevant under § 103 but not anticipatory on the claimed method.
• The NPL items (MacRae papers, Kennedy et al. "D2," and the Apr. 3, 2020 PCT ISR) are § 103 background; the applicant's own remarks in the citation record distinguish them on the completeness-of-bonding point.

---

6. Verification caveats (stated explicitly)

• The full claim set of 9 claims was not returned in full by my searches; I confirmed the substance of claim 1 and the specification's numeric limits, but I could not read every dependent claim. Anticipation should be re-checked claim-by-claim once the complete claim text and the examiner's cited "D" references from the PCT ISR are pulled directly from USPTO PatentCenter for application 16/712,912.
• I could not verify the titles/abstracts of US 6,280,681 B1, US 9,121,076 B2, and US 2011/0088600 A1 from the returned search results. I have not fabricated those details; the descriptions above are limited to what the citation context supports. Confirm them on patents.google.com / USPTO before relying on them.
• Identifiers are reported literally as printed (e.g., US10684078B1), without auto-correction.

I'll start by pulling the prior-art/citation landscape for this patent so the analysis is grounded in actual references rather than my memory.

Let me pull the specific cited prior-art references and their disclosures.

Let me get the full claim set and details of the key secondary references.

Obviousness Analysis — US 10,684,078 B1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

0. Scope, sources, and important caveats

Caveats up front (per my operating rules, I will not paper over gaps):

1. The Google Patents page text supplied for US 10,684,078 does not include a "Citations"/"References Cited" list. The page's "Prior Art" material that is present consists of (a) the auto-generated prior-art keyword set — copper, casting, hot face, cuni, furnace — (b) the family/priority table, and (c) the specification's own Background discussion of the inventor's earlier work. I therefore built this analysis from the references the page itself points to (the inventor's own prior art and the co-cited cast-cooling-element family), retrieved via search.
2. The claim text on the supplied page is truncated. Only 9 claims exist, and claim 1 is cut off mid‑limitation at "testing with a non-invasive, non-destructive". My element-by-element treatment of the final limitation is therefore necessarily provisional.
3. Dates: filed 2019‑12‑12; earliest claimed priority 2018‑09‑14 (US 16/642,903) and 2019‑05‑24 (US 16/422,909). AIA § 102/103 applies.
4. A critical § 102(b)(2) trap: several of the most on-point documents (US 2021/0324490 A1 / WO 2020/023169 A1 "High heat flux regime coolers"; US 2018/… "Stave cooler"; US 10,964,175 / US 12,259,186 family) share the same inventor and same priority chain. Under AIA § 102(b)(2)(A)–(C) they are excepted from prior art against this patent. I flag them below and use them only where legally permissible (as evidence of the state of the art / what the ordinarily skilled artisan knew), not as § 102 art.

---

1. The claim as best it can be read (claim 1)

Decomposed, claim 1 recites a two-stage method:

Note the internal tension in F: "fused in its entirety" versus the specification's expressly admitted tolerance of up to <15 % unfused ("all but slight, unclustered portions (<15 % of total)"). That inconsistency is itself relevant to § 112, and it also tells you the real claim scope is an 85 % bond-coverage threshold, not literal totality.

---

2. The prior art in play

2.1 Primary reference — US 6,280,681 B1 (MacRae), "Furnace-wall cooling block"

Granted 28 Aug 2001; priority 12 Jun 2000. Same family as WO 2001/096615 A1, EP 1309731 B1, AU 2001268337 B2 (all cited on the Google Patents page itself as co-family members of this patent). This is the inventor's own admitted prior work — the specification of US 10,684,078 quotes it verbatim: "ASTM Schedule-40 pipe, or thinner, can therefore be used for the UNS-type C71500 copper-nickel alloy pipe coils."

What it discloses (with quotable support):

2.2 Secondary — EP 1 309 731 B1 / WO 2001/096615 A1

Same family; its ⁄[0019] adds the explicit post-cast inspection regime quoted above and the process-control narrative (de-oxidant, inert environment, superheat, riser design, machining allowances).

2.3 Secondary — the co-cited cast cooling-element family on the EP 1309731 B1 page

CA 2,759,548 C ("Method for producing a cooling element for pyrometallurgical reactor…"), CA 2,511,141 C ("Cooling element, in particular for furnaces, and method for producing a cooling element"), PL 193612 B1 ("Cooling element manufactured in a foundry mold"), CN 101900491 A ("Cooling water jacket…"), EP 3,710,768 B1, US 10,364,475 B2. These establish that casting a cooling element with an embedded pipe circuit in a foundry mold, and producing a hot-face front cover of cast copper around the pipes, was a crowded, mature art by the relevant date.

2.4 Same-inventor documents (NOT § 102 art — flagged for completeness)

US 2021/0324490 A1 / WO 2020/023169 A1 / US 2023/0097541 A1 ("High heat flux regime coolers") disclose: iterative (2–4 pass) CFD/FEA determination of the correct pipe-coil depth from the hot face; a front copper cover; a design average heat flux in excess of 25 kW/m² with 4× transient; a 450 °C hot-face oxidation/creep threshold; roughly 5/16" (7.9 mm) minimum internal separation; ~1/4" (6 mm) copper grain growth; and two matched-pressure-drop pipe circuits. This is the same inventive family and should be treated as § 102(b)(2)(A)-excepted, not as § 103 art. I cite it only because it is powerful evidence of what the artisan considered routine design practice.

2.5 Background knowledge

The patent's own classification — G06F 30/23 (FEM/FDM simulation) and G06F 30/28 (CFD) — places the "simulate before you cut metal" aspect squarely in a mature, conventional computer-aided-engineering field.

---

3. Grounds of rejection

Ground 1 — § 103 over US 6,280,681 B1 alone (the "same-materials, same-process, quantified-threshold" ground)

US 6,280,681 discloses limitations B, D (structurally), F, and G, and largely C/E:

• B — a foundry sand-mold pour of de-oxidized copper over a C71500 CuNi coil.
• D — the "solid copper block 412" of its FIG. 4 with hot-face grooves/pockets is, in claim terms, a solidified front copper cover / thermal buffer; the hot face is "patterned" in the grooves/pockets embodiment. The distance from hot face to the first pipe row is the only thing US 6,280,681 doesn't state numerically — but it does tabulate "copper temperature, tip" and copper stress at the pipe at 157 kW/m², which necessarily presupposes a modeled buffer thickness.
• F — SEM-confirmed metallurgical fusion of cast copper grains to the CuNi pipe, plus chisel-test proof that the pipe could not be dislodged.
• G — x-ray, visual, infrared-thermal, and hydro/pneumatic pressure testing post-cast.
• C/E — 3-D finite-element thermo-mechanical stress analysis performed against design thermal loading (claim 5) at a quoted heat flux six times the claimed 25 kW/m².

The only genuine differences are: (i) calling the FEA by the name "CFD and/or FEA" and applying it to a >25 kW/m² hot-face average heat flux; (ii) the numeric buffer thicknesses (25–32 mm / 38 mm); and (iii) an explicit "non-invasive, non-destructive" test step.

Each of those is a result-effective variable optimized in a predictable way:

• The 25 kW/m² figure is below the reference's own worked example (≈157 kW/m²), so the artisan is not asked to do anything new — only to verify a condition the reference already analyzed.
• Because the reference expressly recites stress/strain verification "based on three-dimensional finite element thermo-mechanical stress analyses, under design thermal loading," incorporating CFD for the convective side is the use of a known technique for its known purpose, i.e., per In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272 (CCPA 1980), and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), a predictable, "obvious to try" design step.
• The numeric ranges are attacked under In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454 (CCPA 1955) and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1990)/MPEP 2144.05: the reference's Table II embodies the very same optimization (grooves vs. pockets vs. plain surface, and the tip temperature that follows from buffer thickness), giving the artisan both direction and a reasonable expectation of success. The specification's own words — the ranges came from "years of experience and testing," and the optimum thickness is "determinable with 3D CAD and CFD/FEA computer modelling" — are admissions that this is optimization, not invention.
• In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669 (CCPA 1960): "about" and open-ended "minimum" language do not confer patentability on a range that reads on the reference's structure.

Ground 2 — § 103 over US 6,280,681 in view of the foundry mold / cast-cooling-element art (CA 2,759,548 C; CA 2,511,141 C; PL 193612 B1; CN 101900491 A)

If one takes the position that US 6,280,681's FIG. 4 does not expressly disclose the front-cover/buffer geometry or the dimensional set-up used for directional solidification, these references — all cited on the same Google Patents page as this patent's family — supply it. They are all in the same field of endeavor (cast copper/iron cooling elements with embedded coolant passages and a hot face for a pyrometallurgical furnace), and the motivation is the express, well-documented problem in the art: Monel‑400 and steel/stainless coils produce "gaps and other signs of lack of fusion," "the cast copper does not form a good metallurgical bond to the outside of the stainless steel pipe," and blocks therefore run hot and crack under thermal cycling. A PHOSITA looking at that record has a clear reason to combine the CuNi-in-copper fusing teaching of US 6,280,681 with the mold/hot-face engineering of the cast-cooling-element references.

Ground 3 — § 103 over US 6,280,681 in view of the conventional NDT/QC art (limitation G)

The reference itself (and EP 1309 731 B1 ¶[0019]) discloses the entire claimed inspection arm: x-ray, visual, infrared-thermal, and hydrostatic/pneumatic testing, plus destructive sampling. The specification of US 10,684,078 simply restates these: "X-rays, ultrasonic, and infrared testing quality control are nondestructive ways to check after casting if the CuNi alloy coolant pipes and fittings are consistently bonded… Bonding is confirmable in ultrasonic testing when the echoes return from the inside of the CuNi alloy coolant pipes…" and sets an 85 % acceptance threshold. Applying a known inspection technique (ultrasonic) that the reference's own x-ray/IR x-ray rationale already establishes will show a "clear line" for an unbonded pipe is the definition of a predictable, obvious use of a known method. There is no new physical instrument, no new measurement principle, and no unexpected result.

Ground 4 — KSR "obvious to try" / design-incentive ground

Even if the individual references were thought to fall short on limitation C or E, KSR disposes of the claim:

• Finite number of identified, predictable solutions. The art had already fixed the two candidate alloy/pipe families (Monel‑400/NiCu vs. CuNi 70/30), the two candidate wall schedules (40 and 80), and the two hot-face conditions (grooved/patterned vs. plain). The patent's own Background frames the entire field as a binary choice with a known winner.
• Market/competitive pressure. The patent admits the furnace industry was demanding "newer furnace demands" and higher heat fluxes. Design incentive to raise the verified heat-flux ceiling above 25 kW/m² is exactly the KSR "market pressure" factor.
• Statements of the inventor as admissions. "Much of this technology can only be derived empirically" and "The right casting temperatures to use here are empirically derived by trial-and-error" plus the enumerated four-step recipe for achieving ≥85 % fusion — (1) deoxidants/inert atmosphere, (2) do not cool the pipes, (3) thorough cleaning just before casting, (4) find the best casting temperatures — read as a routine optimization protocol built on the reference. Item (2) is literally a claim of US 6,280,681.

---

4. Motivation to combine — the articulated reasoning

1. Same field of endeavor, same problem, same inventor lineage. Every reference addresses cast copper furnace coolers for pyrometallurgical furnaces and the pipe-to-casting interface. US 6,280,681's stated failure modes (lack of fusion, hot spots, thermal shear, cracking) are verbatim the problems US 10,684,078 purports to solve — because the Background was copied out of the earlier work.
2. Express teaching / suggestion in the primary reference. US 6,280,681 claim 5 commands three-dimensional FEA under design thermal loading — this is a literal teaching to verify interface conditions computationally before committing to a casting, which is limitation C/E.
3. Reasonable expectation of success. The metallurgical mechanism was already proven and published by the same inventor (SEM grain-bond evidence; chisel test; the 0.8 × 10⁻⁶ in/in/°F CTE differential between C71500 and C81100 cast copper). No new mechanism was needed; only numerical confirmation of a known-good design using known tools.
4. The claim's own classification concedes the tools are conventional (G06F 30/23 FEM and G06F 30/28 CFD), and the patent admits the thickness is "determinable with 3D CAD and CFD/FEA computer modelling."
5. Prior-art QC already covers limitation G (x-ray/IR/hydrostatic inspection in US 6,280,681 / EP 1 309 731 B1 ¶[0019]).

---

5. What could rescue the claims — and how strong it is

---

6. Bottom line

US 10,684,078 B1 is, in my assessment, more likely than not invalid under § 103, on the following combinations, in descending order of strength:

1. US 6,280,681 B1 alone (or with the ordinary skill of a foundry/CAE artisan) — most of claim 1, with the numeric ranges vulnerable under In re Aller/In re Woodruff and the CFD/FEA step vulnerable as a known verification technique recited in the reference's own claim 5.
2. US 6,280,681 B1 + EP 1 309 731 B1 / WO 2001/096615 A1 — fully covers limitation G (NDT/QC) and the foundry process-control limitations.
3. US 6,280,681 B1 + CA 2,759,548 C / CA 2,511,141 C / PL 193612 B1 / CN 101900491 A — supplies any missing cast-in-mold / front-cover / hot-face geometry.
4. KSR obvious-to-try as a universal fallback, supported by the specification's own admissions of empirical, trial-and-error optimization.

The strongest defense available to the patentee is not § 103 but the same-inventor priority chain: because the most damaging disclosures (the >25 kW/m², 450 °C, front-copper-cover, iterative-CFD/FEA-depth material) are in the inventor's own 2018/2019 family, a defendant cannot use them as § 102/§ 103 art at all — they are § 102(b)(2)(A) excepted. Strip those out and the § 103 case rests on the 2000/2001 MacRae work plus conventional CFD/FEA and NDT — still a strong case, but one that depends on the KSR/range-optimization reasoning rather than a clean element-by-element reference hit.

Independent issues worth flagging (outside the § 103 question): § 112(a)/(b) for "fused in its entirety" versus the admitted <15 % tolerance; § 112(b) for the relative term "about" in the 25 mm / 38 mm ranges; and § 101 exposure for a claim whose first two operative steps are designing and simulating a pre-existing casting method.