Invalidity dossier
US 6229059
Process for the production of 1, 2-dichloroethane
Current assignee: Vinnolit Technologie GmbH and Co KG
Added 9/24/2026, 1:24:25 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 6229059 B1
Title: Process for the production of 1,2-dichloroethane
Assignee / Inventor: Original assignee Krupp Uhde GmbH; current assignee listed as Vinnolit Technologie GmbH and Co KG. Inventor: Joachim Motz.
Key dates: Priority 1999-02-06; filed 2000-02-04; granted 2001-05-08. Status listed as "Expired – Fee Related" (anticipated expiration 2020-02-04).
Purpose: The invention addresses a commercial-scale problem in making 1,2-dichloroethane (EDC) by direct chlorination of ethylene with chlorine gas in the liquid phase, using one or more catalysts and/or promoters at 75–100 °C and 0.8–3 bar absolute. Hydrogen chloride formed at the head of the EDC stripping (light-ends) column caused corrosion there and interfered with meeting cracking-furnace operator specifications for EDC.
Plain-language scope: EDC produced is drawn off as vapour; high-boilers are separated in a heavy-ends column and a downstream vacuum column (recovered EDC returned via line 9), while light-boilers and gases such as ethylene and hydrogen chloride are separated in an EDC stripping/light-ends column. The claimed improvement neutralises the vapours and/or condensed vapours leaving that column using an alkaline substance—preferably caustic soda solution—thereby removing hydrogen chloride, preventing corrosion, and reliably meeting EDC specifications at relatively low cost. The neutralised vapours are condensed, separated into aqueous and organic phases, and the organic phase is returned to the EDC column for further treatment. The concentrated high-boilers are discharged, burnt, and hydrogen chloride recovered.
Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6229059/en
What the excerpt does not establish: The full claim language and claim count; the complete detailed description and any drawing reference numerals beyond those quoted; Examples or comparative data; the exhaustive prior-art citations and examiner reasoning; and bibliographic details of the 2002 50%-interest assignment beyond the listing shown.
Generated 10/1/2026, 9:31:27 PM
Cases on file (0)
Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 6229059. 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.