Agricultural biotechnology — US PTAB Patent Cases
9 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 9 total
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.
Inari Agriculture challenges the PTAB’s denial of institution for a plant‑utility patent, arguing the Board created an improper bright‑line rule that shields patents based on secret parent lines. The petition cites statutory and policy grounds, seeking Director review.
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.
The PTAB Director denied Inari Agriculture’s request for a Director Review of institution decisions in four PGR cases involving Pioneer Hi-Bred’s seed patent. The denial leaves the original institution outcomes intact.
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Corteva Agriscience LLC et al.
Corteva Agriscience seeks Director review of a PTAB decision that instituted inter‑partes review of its transgenic corn patent, arguing the Board misapplied enablement law and misread factual evidence of germplasm availability.
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Corteva Agriscience LLC et al.
The PTAB denied Inari Agriculture's request for Director Review of the institution decision on Corteva's patent 8,901,378, leaving the institution in place.
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.
The PTAB Director denied Inari Agriculture’s request for review of institution decisions in four PGR cases, including the one covering patent 11,666,020, leaving the institution rulings intact.
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.
The USPTO Director denied Inari Agriculture's request to review the PTAB's denial of institution for Pioneer Hi‑Bred's seed‑technology patent, leaving the denial in place.
Aardevo North America, LLC et al. v.Agventure B.V.
Aardevo North America petitions the PTAB Director to review the Board’s denial to institute an IPR on Agventure’s hybrid seed potato breeding patent. The petitioner contends the Board ignored printed‑publication anticipations, dismissed secondary‑consideration evidence, and misapplied the nexus requirement.
Aardevo North America, LLC et al. v.Agventure B.V.
The PTAB denied Aardevo North America’s request for director review of its petition to institute an IPR against Agventure’s potato‑breeding patent. The Board held that the petitioner’s reliance on physical products violated statutory limits and that it failed to rebut secondary considerations of non‑obviousness.
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.
Inari Agriculture challenges the PTAB’s denial of its PGR, arguing the Board improperly required seed sequencing under §103 for a plant utility patent. The petition seeks director review to overturn the denial and restore the ability to contest the patent without analyzing deposited seed.
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.