Aardevo North America, LLC et al. v. Agventure B.V.

IPR2025-00136

Aardevo North America challenges Agventure's 2021 potato hybrid seed patent, asserting that all ten claims are anticipated or obvious based on decades of prior art. The petition lists nine grounds covering anticipation and obviousness over publications dating back to 1971. No secondary considerations are offered.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2025-00136
Filing Date
11 April 2024
Status
ok

Related Cases

patentPGR2025-00086

Dr. Falk Pharma GmbHvsEllodi Pharmaceuticals

Dr. Falk Pharma challenges Ellodi's U.S. Patent 12,290,598 covering orally disintegrating tablets, asserting lack of written description, enablement, indefiniteness, anticipation, and obviousness over numerous prior‑art references. The petition seeks cancellation of all 34 claims.

patentIPR2026-00154

Target CorporationvsHEADWATER RESEARCH LLC

Target Corporation has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all fifteen claims of Headwater Research’s 2017 ‘192 patent covering a message‑link server for MMS. The petition relies on a broad set of prior‑art references to argue obviousness under §§102/103.

patentIPR2026-00174

Microsoft CorporationvsSandpiper CDN, LLC

Microsoft has filed an IPR petition challenging Sandpiper CDN’s 9,762,692 patent covering CDN popularity‑based routing and content partitioning, asserting obviousness over Seed and Swildens references.

patentIPR2025-00473

Charter Communications, Inc.vsIarnach Technologies Limited

Iarnach Technologies filed a preliminary response urging the PTAB to deny Charter Communications’ IPR petition on U.S. Patent 9,674,035. The owner contends the petition lacks a reasonable likelihood of success and that the cited prior art does not teach the claimed updates. The Board is asked to reject the petition.

patentIPR2024-01493

Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al.vsGodo Kaisha IP Bridge 1

Western Digital files an authorized response opposing IP Bridge’s Director Review request, asserting the request lacks merit and that the PTAB’s institution decisions should stand.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Talk to our patent team →

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.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call