Agriculture — US PTAB Patent Cases
17 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 17 total
smaXtec Inc. et al. v.ST Reproductive Technologies, LLC et al.
The PTAB granted institution for the IPR challenge against a patent covering animal management systems using RFID technology. The Petitioner successfully argued that prior art references, including Trevarthen and Laitinen/Buchanan/Liao, provided sufficient motivation to combine elements of the challenged claims.
Syngenta Crop Protection AG v.Inflexion Point Technologies, LLC
Syngenta Crop Protection AG's petition to invalidate Inflexion Point Technologies' patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found insufficient evidence of anticipation or obviousness across multiple grounds, rejecting all challenges including enablement.
Ceva Sante Animal S.A. et al. v.Targan, Inc.
Ceva Santé Animale S.A. filed an IPR challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 10,806,124, asserting that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition relies on multiple combinations of prior art references (Gershman, Pierre, Yavnai, Tao) related to poultry sexing and image analysis.
smaXtec Inc. et al. v.ST Reproductive Technologies, LLC et al.
The PTAB has instituted an IPR petition challenging claims of the '206 Patent related to livestock management systems. The petitioner asserts that multiple claims are obvious over combinations of prior art references covering RFID and advanced data analysis in herd health detection.
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Corteva Agriscience LLC et al.
Inari Agriculture challenged Corteva Agriscience's patent covering TC1507 plant biotechnology, arguing the claims fail enablement under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) due to missing germplasm deposits. The petitioner also asserted anticipation and obviousness over prior art (Barbour) under both §102 and §103.
Ceva Sante Animal S.A. et al. v.Targan, Inc.
The PTAB found that claims 1-15 of the patent are unpatentable over various combinations of prior art references. The Board's construction of 'unrestrained chick' was crucial, defining it as a chick free to open its wings on the moving platform.
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Corteva Agriscience LLC et al.
The PTAB Board upheld the validity of U.S. Patent No. 8,901,378 B2 after finding that the TC1507 germplasm was publicly available prior to the application's filing date. The Board concluded that this availability satisfied priority requirements and prevented Barbour from qualifying as prior art under § 102.
smaXtec Inc. et al. v.ST Reproductive Technologies, LLC et al.
The PTAB found that the challenged claims of patent 9844206 were unpatentable over prior art combinations, primarily citing Trevarthen and Laitinen/Buchanan/Liao. The Board adopted the Patent Owner's claim construction for 'implanted in an animal,' meaning implanted within the animal.
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Corteva Agriscience LLC et al.
Inari Agriculture successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against Corteva Agriscience's GMO patents based on prior art from Barbour. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing regarding anticipation and obviousness over the cited publication, moving the case toward trial.
smaXtec Inc. et al. v.ST Reproductive Technologies, LLC et al.
The PTAB has instituted an IPR proceeding challenging the validity of claims in patent 9844206, focusing on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Petitioner successfully demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing by presenting strong arguments regarding prior art combination and claim construction.
Ceva Sante Animal S.A. et al. v.Targan, Inc.
The PTAB decided to institute the IPR challenge against Targan, Inc.'s patent (10806124), finding that the Petitioner presented new and non-cumulative prior art combinations. The case involves poultry production technology, with Ceva Sante Animal S.A. as the petitioner.
Aardevo North America, LLC et al. v.Agventure B.V.
The PTAB denied Aardevo North America's IPR petition against Agventure B.V., finding the petitioner failed to overcome compelling objective indicia of non-obviousness. The Board rejected arguments based on anticipation and obviousness, particularly concerning potato breeding methods.
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of a PGR petition challenging the patentability of an inbred maize variety, finding that the petitioner failed to meet the burden of showing unpatentability on merits. The Board specifically noted the lack of evidence regarding the claimed genotype and found no unsettled legal questions warranting institutional review.
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of the PGR petition filed by Inari Agriculture against Pioneer Hi-Bred, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable expectation of success. The Board specifically rejected obviousness claims because they relied on phenotypic comparisons while ignoring critical genotypic differences in maize breeding technology.
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of Inari Agriculture's PGR against Pioneer Hi-Bred International regarding maize breeding claims. The Board found the Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable expectation of success, specifically failing to adequately address the unique genotype (PH4CYJ) central to the patent.
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.
The PTAB denied Inari Agriculture's PGR challenge against Pioneer Hi-Bred International regarding maize breeding claims (1-20). The Board found the petitioner failed to demonstrate unpatentability on grounds of obviousness, utility, or indefiniteness.
smaXtec Inc. et al. v.ST Reproductive Technologies, LLC et al.
smaXtec Inc. has filed an IPR petition challenging the validity of ST Reproductive Technologies' '515 Patent, which covers livestock tracking and management systems. The petitioner asserts that multiple claims are anticipated or rendered obvious by various prior art references related to RFID sensor data collection.
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.