NeoChloris Holding LLC v. Cemvita Factory Inc.
Infringement action filed 4 Sep 2025 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas and closed 29 May 2026, with US10179895B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: dismissed without prejudice.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US10179895B2
- Application no.
- US14/886907
- Case no.
- 4:25-cv-04190
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- S.D. Tex.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Texas
- Chief judge
- George C Hanks Jr
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 4 Sep 2025 – 29 May 2026
- Duration
- 267 days
- Basis of termination
- Dismissed without Prejudice
- Products & marks
- Device for fuel and chemical production from biomass-sequestered carbon dioxide and method therefor
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
Check this patent against your own product
Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.
Get an FTO claim chart- 01Ranked prior artEvery hit source-linked
- 02Claim-level comparisonAgainst your own product
- 03Legal statusAcross 174 jurisdictions
Device for fuel and chemical production from biomass-sequestered carbon dioxide and method therefor
A process and apparatus for converting sequestered carbon to fuel, such as methane, and/or materials, such as fermentation substrates, biopolymers, bioplastics, oils, pigments, fibers, proteins, vitamins, fertilizers and animal feed. The apparatus comprises a deep well carbon-sequestering bioreactor coaxially located within a deep well anaerobic bioreactor. Carbon is sequestered into a photosynthetic biomass or a heterotrophic biomass, which is subsequently digested by an anaerobic biomass containing methanogenic microbes, whereby methane is a digestion product.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 15 Jan 2019
- Earliest priority
- 12 Mar 2009
- Est. expiry
- 6 Oct 2030
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- KODUKULA, PRASAD S · STACK, CHARLES R
- Classification
- C12M1/107C12M1/08C12P5/02C12P39/00C12M1/34C12M1/00C12M3/00C12M1/06C12P21/00C12P19/00C12P7/64
- Prosecution counsel
- Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg LLP
- Examiner
- HOBBS, MICHAEL L
Parties of record
NeoChloris Holding LLC
- Core tech
- C12M1/107C12M1/08C12P5/02C12P39/00
- Counsel
- Dean D. Niro · Michael Scott Dowler · Nicholas D. Niro · Patrick F. Solon
- Firm
- Park, Vaughan, Fleming & Dowler LLP, Vitale Vickrey Niro Solon & Gasey LLP
Cemvita Factory Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Not recorded
- Firm
- Not recorded
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Dean D. Niro | NeoChloris Holding LLC | Plaintiff |
| Michael Scott Dowler | NeoChloris Holding LLC | Plaintiff |
| Nicholas D. Niro | NeoChloris Holding LLC | Plaintiff |
| Patrick F. Solon | NeoChloris Holding LLC | Plaintiff |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“On May 14, 2026, Plaintiff, NeoChloris Holding LLC and Defendant, Gold H2, Inc. filed a Stipulation of Dismissal Without Prejudice (Dkt. 30) pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that all claims asserted against any party in the above-captioned lawsuit are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to their being re-filed. Each party shall bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs.”
Case 4:25-cv-04190 · S.D. Tex. · closed 29 May 2026
Related cases
Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.
Frequently asked questions
What is case 4:25-cv-04190?
4:25-cv-04190 is a patent infringement action brought by NeoChloris Holding LLC against Cemvita Factory Inc., filed on 4 Sep 2025 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The case closed on 29 May 2026.
Which patent was asserted in 4:25-cv-04190?
US10179895B2 (“Device for fuel and chemical production from biomass-sequestered carbon dioxide and method therefor”), assigned to NEOCHLORIS HOLDING LLC, currently active. The record also lists Device for fuel and chemical production from biomass-sequestered carbon dioxide and method therefor.
How was case 4:25-cv-04190 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is dismissed without prejudice. The termination text reads: “On May 14, 2026, Plaintiff, NeoChloris Holding LLC and Defendant, Gold H2, Inc. filed a Stipulation of Dismissal Without Prejudice (Dkt. 30) pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that all claims asserted against any party in the above-captioned lawsuit are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to their being re-filed. Each party shall bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs.”
What does dismissal without prejudice mean?
A dismissal without prejudice ends this action but leaves the claims alive — the plaintiff may file them again later, subject to the limitation period.
How long did case 4:25-cv-04190 take?
267 calendar days, from filing on 4 Sep 2025 to closure on 29 May 2026.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 4:25-cv-04190?
Chief Judge George C Hanks Jr presided. Dean D. Niro, Michael Scott Dowler, Nicholas D. Niro and Patrick F. Solon are recorded as counsel for plaintiff NeoChloris.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 4:25-cv-04190 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.
Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.
No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.
No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.