Chemical engineering — US PTAB Patent Cases
9 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 9 total
Topsoe, Inc. et al. v.CASALE SA
Topsoe petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑11 and 17‑19 of Casale’s ’168 patent covering ammonia synthesis from natural gas. The petition relies on anticipation and obviousness arguments using five prior‑art references. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.
Topsoe, Inc. et al. v.CASALE SA
Topsoe has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑11 and 17‑19 of Casale’s U.S. Patent 11,286,168. The petition argues that the claims are anticipated or obvious over a collection of prior‑art references, especially a 2007 IFA presentation and several earlier patents. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
Topsoe, Inc. et al. v.L'AIR LIQUIDE, SOCIÉTÉ ANONYME POUR L'ETUDE ET L'EXPLOITATION DES PROCÉDÉS GEORGES CLAUDE
Topsoe has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Air Liquide’s 2023 hydrogen‑production patent, alleging that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references including Martin, Rafati, Gauthier and Terrien.
Topsoe, Inc. et al. v.L'AIR LIQUIDE, SOCIÉTÉ ANONYME POUR L'ETUDE ET L'EXPLOITATION DES PROCÉDÉS GEORGES CLAUDE
Topsoe has filed an IPR petition challenging Air Liquide’s 2023 hydrogen‑production patent (US 11,673,805). The challenger alleges anticipation and obviousness over four prior‑art references and seeks cancellation of claims 1‑6, 11 and 12.
JIANGSU FAVORED NANOTECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. v.P2i Ltd.
JIANGSU FAVORED NANOTECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. successfully petitioned to overturn a discretionary denial of IPR for P2i Ltd.'s patent (11041087). The Board found that the prior art was sufficiently evaluated during prosecution, leading to the institution of the case on § 103 grounds.
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. v.EVONIK OPERATIONS GMBH et al.
Air Products’ IPR petition against Evonik’s 10,471,380 B2 membrane‑gas‑separation patent is met with a detailed preliminary response. Evonik argues the petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability, misinterprets the claims, and that the cited references teach away. The Owner seeks denial of institution.
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. v.EVONIK OPERATIONS GMBH et al.
Air Products challenges EVONIK's membrane technology patent (10471380), arguing the claims are obvious over prior art references Ungerank and Scholz. The petitioner asserts that skilled artisans would have been motivated to combine these teachings to achieve the claimed features in gas separation.
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. v.EVONIK OPERATIONS GMBH et al.
Air Products successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR on 23 claims of EVONIK's patent, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least Claim 1 would be obvious over Ungerank and Scholz. The Board rejected arguments that the prior art taught away from the claimed invention.
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. v.EVONIK OPERATIONS GMBH et al.
The IPR petition against EVONIK's gas separation membrane technology failed as the Petitioner could not establish unpatentability. The Board found that the combination of cited prior art references lacked a sufficient motivation to combine, upholding the patent's validity.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.