TOPSOE, INC. v. L'Air Liquide SA pour l'Etude et l'Exploitation des Procedes Georges Claude

TOPSOE, INC. has initiated an Inter Partes Review (IPR2025-01173) against L'Air Liquide SA pour l'Etude et l'Exploitation des Procedes Georges Claude, challenging the validity of US Patent 11673805 before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). TOPSOE, INC. is a Danish company and a global leader in providing advanced technology and solutions for the energy transition, specializing in catalysts and process technology for industries such as chemical and refining. Their core business involves transforming renewable resources into fuels and chemicals, including green hydrogen, ammonia, diesel, and methanol, and developing proprietary technologies like Solid Oxide Electrolyzer Cells (SOEC) for clean hydrogen production. Conversely, L'Air Liquide SA is a French multinational corporation recognized as a world leader in industrial gases and services, supplying a wide range of industries including medical, chemical, and electronics. The company is deeply involved in hydrogen production, distribution, and associated technologies, offering products such as oxygen, nitrogen, argon, and hydrogen.

The patent at issue, US Patent 11673805, broadly covers a method for producing green hydrogen in a manner that facilitates and improves its use for the synthesis of methanol, ammonia, or other chemicals, or for the production of synthetic liquid fuels, particularly for the reduction of iron ore in the steel industry. The IPR proceeding is situated at the PTAB, an administrative tribunal within the USPTO, which offers a faster and generally less expensive alternative to district court litigation for challenging patent validity based on prior art. The procedural posture is particularly notable because the petition for IPR was instituted, a significant development given the recent shift in PTAB practice where USPTO Director John Squires has taken personal control over all institution decisions since October 2025. This includes an increased scrutiny on discretionary denials, often based on factors like "settled expectations" or parallel litigation.

The case is notable for its direct linkage to the rapidly evolving and strategically important sector of green hydrogen production and energy transition technologies. Both TOPSOE and L'Air Liquide are major operating companies deeply invested in this space, where intellectual property protection is crucial amidst significant global investment and government incentives for decarbonization. The institution of this IPR suggests the petition successfully navigated the PTAB's recent, more restrictive institution framework, underscoring the perceived strength of TOPSOE's challenge to L'Air Liquide's patent in this competitive and high-stakes industry.

The provided case, TOPSOE, INC. v. L'Air Liquide SA pour l'Etude et l'Exploitation des Procedes Georges Claude, is an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding, IPR2025-01173, before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), challenging US patent 11673805. While the prompt indicates the status as "Instituted," the available public records strongly suggest a different outcome, primarily referencing IPR2025-01174, a closely related or identical proceeding for the same patent and parties.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome of PTAB IPR2025-01173 (and related IPR2025-01174):

• Petition Filing: TOPSOE, INC. filed a petition for Inter Partes Review against U.S. Patent No. 11,673,805, owned by L'Air Liquide SA pour l'Etude et l'Exploitation des Procedes Georges Claude. The filing date for IPR2025-01174 was July 1, 2025. The patent itself was filed on August 11, 2021, and issued on June 13, 2023.
• Institution Decision - Discretionary Denial: For IPR2025-01174, the PTAB rendered an "Institution Decision Date" of November 19, 2025. However, the outcome was a "Discretionary Denial," meaning the PTAB chose not to institute the inter partes review. This decision was made by the USPTO Director, a process that became effective as of October 20, 2025, where the Director determines whether to institute IPR and Post-Grant Review (PGR) trials, considering discretionary denial and merits issues.
• Post-Institution Fees Refund: Following the discretionary denial of institution, a "Notice: refund approved" was mailed on November 25, 2025, for certain post-institution fees paid on July 2, 2025, in IPR2025-01174. This indicates that the review did not proceed beyond the institution phase.
• Discrepancy in IPR Number: It's important to note that while the prompt refers to IPR2025-01173, most public records found directly referencing patent 11673805 and the named parties pertain to IPR2025-01174, which shows a status of "Discretionary Denial." One document, a Power of Attorney filed by L'Air Liquide, even lists "IPR2025-01173, -001174" together for U.S. Patent No. 11,673,805, suggesting a very close relationship, possibly that IPR2025-01173 was administratively linked to or superseded by IPR2025-01174, or that there might be a clerical error in the provided case number. Given the consistent reporting of a discretionary denial for IPR2025-01174, it is highly probable that IPR2025-01173, if distinct, shares a similar outcome or was otherwise not instituted.

Absence of Parallel Patent Infringement Litigation:

Despite targeted searches for a parallel district court patent infringement litigation involving US patent 11673805 with TOPSOE, INC. and L'Air Liquide SA as direct parties, no such case has been identified. While IPRs are often filed in response to or in parallel with district court infringement suits, no specific docket or case details for an infringement litigation between these parties concerning patent 11673805 were found. The general legal landscape acknowledges that PTAB IPR proceedings can impact concurrent district court litigation, often leading to motions to stay the infringement case. However, without a confirmed district court case, no further details on such developments can be provided.

The following attorneys are representing TOPSOE, INC. (Petitioner) in IPR2025-01173:

• Aaron R. Feigelson

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C. (Customer Number 23460 is associated with Fish & Richardson P.C.)
  • Office Location: While specific office location for Aaron Feigelson is not in the provided search results, Fish & Richardson has multiple offices including New York, NY, known for intellectual property law. Fish & Richardson is a global patent, intellectual property, and commercial litigation law firm with over 400 attorneys and technology specialists across the US and Europe.
  • Experience: Fish & Richardson is a prominent intellectual property law firm, highly active in patent litigation and PTAB proceedings, handling more PTAB cases than any other firm. Aaron Feigelson is identified as lead counsel in this IPR proceeding.

• Stephen B. Barone

  • Role: Backup Counsel
  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C.
  • Office Location: Not specified in the provided search results, but associated with Fish & Richardson P.C..
  • Experience: As backup counsel at Fish & Richardson P.C., Stephen Barone is part of a firm with extensive experience in patent litigation and PTAB proceedings.

• Sally A. Sullivan

  • Role: Backup Counsel
  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C.
  • Office Location: Not specified in the provided search results, but associated with Fish & Richardson P.C..
  • Experience: As backup counsel at Fish & Richardson P.C., Sally Sullivan is part of a firm renowned for its work in intellectual property law, including numerous PTAB cases.

• Jeffrey A. Andrews

  • Role: Backup Counsel
  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C.
  • Office Location: Not specified in the provided search results, but associated with Fish & Richardson P.C..
  • Experience: Designated as additional backup counsel, Jeffrey Andrews is part of Fish & Richardson P.C., a leading firm in patent and intellectual property litigation.

• Kyril Talanov

  • Role: Senior IP Counsel (in-house for Petitioner Topsoe, Inc.)
  • Firm: Topsoe, Inc.
  • Office Location: Not specified, but acts in an in-house capacity for Topsoe, Inc..
  • Experience: Signed the Petitioner's Power of Attorney on behalf of Topsoe, Inc., indicating a key role in managing the company's intellectual property and legal strategy in this IPR.

L'Air Liquide SA pour l'Etude et l'Exploitation des Procedes Georges Claude (Patent Owner) in IPR2025-01173 has appointed attorneys associated with Customer Number 32425 to represent them.

Based on publicly available information and typical PTAB proceedings, the following counsel are representing L'Air Liquide SA pour l'Etude et l'Exploitation des Procedes Georges Claude:

• Allen E. White
  • Role: Chief IP Counsel, North America (in-house)
  • Firm: L'Air Liquide SA pour l'Etude et l'Exploitation des Procedes Georges Claude
  • Office Location: Not explicitly stated, but as Chief IP Counsel for North America, his office would likely be within a North American Air Liquide entity. Air Liquide has a significant global presence, including operations in the US.
  • Experience: Allen E. White is identified as the Chief IP Counsel for North America and signed the Power of Attorney for the Patent Owner in this IPR, indicating a lead in-house role in managing the company's intellectual property and litigation strategy. Air Liquide maintains a dynamic portfolio of over 10,000 patents, and its global IP team manages various IP aspects, including patents and technology transactions.

Further details regarding specific external counsel firms or additional attorneys representing L'Air Liquide in this particular IPR are not readily available in the provided search results beyond the internal counsel listed. It is common for in-house counsel to work with external law firms for IPR proceedings, but those details are not publicly detailed in the provided snippets.