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
Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al.vsSerendia, LLC
EndyMed Medical and Serendia, LLC filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related regulations. The request seeks to separate the agreement from the patent file and limit its disclosure.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLCvsHalozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck defends its PH20 enzyme patent in a PTAB Director Review proceeding, arguing that the claims satisfy §112 written description and enablement and that Halozyme's claim‑construction objections are unfounded. The petitioner also contends that Fintiv factors do not justify discretionary denial.
Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. et al.vsGenzyme Corporation et al.
Sarepta has filed an IPR petition challenging Genzyme’s 7,704,721 AAV vector patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior‑art purification methods. The petition cites Auricchio, Konz, Potter and related references to support its grounds.
Cisco Systems, Inc.vsGolden Eye Technologies LLC
Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate five claims of Golden Eye's 9,271,243 patent covering WLAN transmit‑power adjustment. The challenger relies on prior‑art references Hills, Wang and Calhoun to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsSecure Communication Technologies, LLC
Samsung Electronics and Secure Communication Technologies settled their IPR dispute before trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and treated the settlement agreement as confidential. The proceeding was terminated with no merits decided.
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.