Short Summary
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.
Detailed Summary
In a petition for inter partes review (IPR2025‑01173), Topsoe, Inc. challenges U.S. Patent No. 11,673,805 owned by Air Liquide, asserting that claims 1‑6, 11 and 12 are either anticipated by the Reinertsen publication or obvious in view of combinations of Reinertsen with Darde, Rytter with Darde, and Reinertsen/Darde with Terrien. The petition details the technical overlap in dual reforming configurations, hydrogen and CO₂ separation steps, and cites lack of secondary considerations. Topsoe requests the PTAB to institute a trial and cancel the challenged claims.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Topsoe, Inc. et al. vs L'AIR LIQUIDE, SOCIÉTÉ ANONYME POUR L'ETUDE ET L'EXPLOITATION DES PROCÉDÉS GEORGES CLAUDE is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsMaxell, LTD.
Maxell filed a preliminary sur‑reply opposing Samsung’s IPR petition on U.S. Patent 7,577,417, arguing that ‘mobile terminal’ means a cellular phone and urging the Board to deny institution.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al.vsVB Assets, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 14 claims of VB Assets’ voice‑dialog patent, asserting that the invention is obvious over two pre‑2006 publications. The petition also argues that a discretionary denial is improper.
Ericsson Inc. et al.vsActive Wireless Technologies LLC
Ericsson, Nokia and Active Wireless Technologies have settled their 5G NR patent dispute and jointly moved to terminate the IPR. The Board has not yet decided the merits, and public policy supports termination.
Silicon Motion Inc. et al.vsK.Mizra Inc.
Silicon Motion and K.Mizra jointly moved to dismiss their IPR and asked the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions.
Geneoscopy, Inc.vsExact Sciences Corporation
Geneoscopy has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑4 and 12‑19 of Exact Sciences’ ’746 patent on the grounds of obviousness and lack of novelty, citing multiple prior‑art references.
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.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.