Invalidity dossier
US 3102116
Process for the purification of y-chloeo-
Added 9/23/2026, 6:21:08 PM
Active provider: DeepSeek · deepseek-flash
Patent summary
Title, assignee, inventors, filing/issue dates, abstract, and a plain-language overview of the claims.
Patent Overview — US 3,102,116
Title as listed: "Process for the purification of y-chloeo-" (the source rendering appears garbled; the specification text describes purification of 7-chloro-1-methyl-5-phenyl-1,4-3H-benzodiazepin-2(1H)-one).
Number: US 3,102,116 A. Publication/grant date: 1963-08-27. Filed: March 12, 1962, Ser. No. 179,189. Inventor: George Chase, Hawthorne, N.J. Assignee: Hoffmann-La Roche Inc., Nutley, N.J., a corporation of New Jersey. Claims: 7. Status listed: Expired – Lifetime; anticipated expiration 1980-08-27.
Purpose: The compound is described as useful as a sedative, muscle relaxant and anticonvulsant, and such compounds must be manufactured in high purity. Impurities in the crude material made large-scale manufacture require cumbersome purification; the invention provides a simple purification procedure.
Plain-language scope (per the supplied text): Crude 7-chloro-1-methyl-5-phenyl-1,4-3H-benzodiazepin-2(1H)-one is treated with dilute (preferably ~3 N) hydrochloric acid at room temperature, converting the product to its soluble hydrochloride while some impurities remain insoluble. Insolubles are separated (e.g., by filtration); the liquor is then treated with a mineral acid chosen from nitric and sulfuric acid to precipitate the nitrate or sulfate salt, leaving other retained impurities in solution. That insoluble salt is isolated and mixed with a lower alkanol and a base (aqueous ammonia is especially suitable with nitric acid; ethanol is convenient), heated sufficiently to effect complete conversion/dissolution (about 50–70 °C with ethanol), cooled, and the purified base separated; the crystals can be washed with water. Example 1 uses 100 g of crude material (~90% pure), nitric acid, and ethanol.
Not established by this excerpt: the full claim set (only claims 1 and a further claim are visible), the complete Example 1 procedural text (a passage is duplicated/truncated), any prior-art references, prosecution history, litigation, ownership transfers, or validity.
Generated 10/1/2026, 9:42:48 PM
Cases on file (0)
Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 3102116. 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.