Invalidity dossier
US RE9380
Added 9/24/2026, 1:45:53 AM
Active provider: DeepSeek · deepseek-flash
Patent summary
Title, assignee, inventors, filing/issue dates, abstract, and a plain-language overview of the claims.
Patent Overview
Title: Steam-Operated Water-Ejector
Patent number: USRE9380E (a reissue)
Inventor: Hugh Coll, of Black Hawk, Beaver County, Pennsylvania
Original patent: No. 90,930, dated June 8, 1869
Reissue application filed: September 4, 1879
Reissue granted: September 21, 1880
Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/[USRE9380](/patent/USRE9380)/en
Purpose. The invention is a steam siphon-pump that "preserve[s] the force of the jet of steam." Per the specification, old single-head siphon pumps required a much greater head of steam because the steam contacted a large body of water and condensed quickly; the reissue states the improved siphon needs "only about one-half the amount of steam."
Plain-language scope (from the described embodiment). An outer pear-shaped hollow head (a) tapers into an outer discharge-pipe (b). A steam-injection pipe (c) enters the rear of head (a) and ends in a narrowed nozzle (m). Inside is a second, smaller hollow pear-shaped head (e), screwed or cast onto pipe (c), tapering into a narrow inner discharge-pipe (c') that opens into the outer discharge-pipe. Inlets (s s) in the inner head admit air and water from the outer chamber, and an induction pipe (g) feeds water through opening (f). Steam from nozzle (m) rushes into the narrow inner discharge tube, expelling water drawn in through holes (s s) and creating a rapid current through the outer discharge tube that draws water from the outer head. The inner head "receives and surrounds the jet of steam, so as to prevent its too rapid condensation." The nozzle may be positioned anywhere inside the inner head but not beyond the outer head; nozzle size may be varied to admit more or less steam.
Not established by this excerpt. The excerpt names no assignee, no litigation, and no ownership transfers. The text contains no formal claim set (the printed matter ends mid-sentence before the claim clause) and only one prior-art reference—an admitted prior use of a non-conductor on a steam-jet, which the inventor expressly does not claim. Related "similar documents" lists are not prior-art findings as to this patent.
Generated 10/1/2026, 9:31:09 PM
Cases on file (0)
Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent RE9380. The free-form analysis below may also discuss cases beyond this list.
No cases on file mention this patent. Upload a CSV or add a case manually in Admin → Manage litigation cases.
Litigation summary
Past and pending lawsuits — plaintiffs, defendants, jurisdictions, outcomes, and notable rulings.
Proceedings on file (0)
All PTAB activity →AIA trial proceedings (IPR / PGR / CBM) filed at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board against this patent. Sourced from the USPTO Open Data Portal and refreshed every six hours; each proceeding number deep-links to the PTAB E2E docket.
No PTAB proceedings on file. This patent has not been challenged via IPR, PGR, or CBM. The absence is itself a signal — well-asserted patents eventually attract IPRs. The LLM analysis below may surface filings the ODP feed hasn’t indexed yet.
PTAB challenges
AIA trial proceedings at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board — IPR, PGR, and CBM. Petitioners, judge panels, claim-level invalidation outcomes from Final Written Decisions, and Federal Circuit appeals. The single most important defensive datapoint after litigation history.
Assignment history
Inventors, original assignee, and the chain of ownership recorded with the USPTO — including the correspondent attorney who recorded each assignment, since shell-LLC chains often share one repeat-player attorney even when the entity names look unrelated. Surfaces NPE / patent-troll patterns: shell-entity transfers, known asserters in the chain, repeat correspondent fingerprints, pre-litigation assignments, and bankruptcy fire-sales.
Prior art
Earlier patents, publications, and products that may anticipate or render the claims unpatentable.
Obviousness
Combinations of prior art that suggest the claimed invention would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Extensions
Patent term adjustments, term extensions, continuations, divisionals, family members, and expiration dates.
Derivative works
Defensive disclosure: derivative variations of each claim designed to render future incremental improvements obvious or non-novel.