Invalidity dossier
US 6201081
Catalyst efficiency for supported metallocene catalyst
Current assignee: Fine Tech Inc
Added 9/21/2026, 4:03:05 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 — US 6,201,081 B1
Title: Catalyst efficiency for supported metallocene catalyst
Assignee/Current Assignee (as listed): Fina Technology, Inc. (also listed as "Fine Tech Inc")
Inventors: Edwar S. Shamshoum; Margarito Lopez; B. Raghava Reddy; Theodore G. Harris
Key dates (as listed):
- Prior art date / priority date: 1996-12-20
- Application number: US09/305,135
- Filing date: 1999-05-04
- Publication/grant date: 2001-03-13
- Anticipated expiration: 2016-12-20; legal status: Expired – Lifetime
Purpose: The invention relates to a method of making a catalyst component in which a metallocene compound is supported on a silica material treated with an alumoxane co-catalyst and complexed with the alumoxane. The resulting supported metallocene catalyst is intended for olefin polymerization, such as propylene polymerization.
Plain-language scope (per the excerpt):
- A supported metallocene catalyst is formed on an inert, non-reactive support such as silica treated with alumoxane (e.g., MAO), and the metallocene is complexed with the alumoxane.
- The temperature of the supporting process affects catalyst efficiency: "the lower the temperature of the supporting process, the higher the catalyst activity." Improved activity is described for isospecific, syndiospecific, and aspecific metallocene catalysts (see FIG. 1, Examples 5–12, isospecific; FIG. 2, Examples 1–4, syndiospecific).
- The catalyst can be suspended in an inert liquid carrier (e.g., mineral oil), contacted with a trialkylaluminum co-catalyst (preferably tri-isobutyl aluminum), and introduced into a polymerization zone; pre-polymerization with co-catalyst and olefin monomer is preferred.
- The excerpt also cites earlier supporting-temperature ranges from other documents (e.g., −50°C to 110°C, preferably 0°C to 80°C; and −100 to 200°C, preferably −70 to 100°C) without asserting which reference those ranges come from.
What the excerpt does not establish: It does not provide the full claims, the complete written description, actual examples/data values, or the identity of the prior-art documents whose temperature ranges are summarized. It does not establish validity, enforceability, ownership history, or litigation.
Generated 10/1/2026, 10:02:35 PM
Cases on file (0)
Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 6201081. 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.