Inari Agriculture, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.

PGR2024-00019

Inari Agriculture has filed a petition for post‑grant review of Pioneer Hi‑Bred’s U.S. Patent 11,659,803 covering a corn variety. The petition asserts obviousness over three prior‑art patents, lack of specific utility, and raises a novel legal question about plant utility patents.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
PGR2024-00019
Filing Date
29 February 2024
Status
ok

Related Cases

patentIPR2025-01057

Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc.vsSolmetex, LLC

Ascentcare Dental Products has petitioned the PTAB to review U.S. Patent 11,589,969, asserting that its claims are anticipated or obvious over earlier dental mouthpiece patents. The petition outlines five statutory grounds under §§102(b) and 103, targeting claims 1‑4 and 6‑19 for cancellation.

patentIPR2025-00687

PacifiCorp et al.vsMES, Inc.

WEC Energy Group and Birchtech Corp. have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 10,933,370 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review involving WEC. The motion cites statutory requirements and public‑policy benefits of settlement, seeking Board approval to end the proceeding.

patentIPR2024-01241

Silicon Motion Inc. et al.vsK. Mizra LLC

Silicon Motion and K. Mizra settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,111,608. The Board terminated the proceeding without deciding the merits, treating the settlement agreement as confidential.

patentIPR2025-00188

Cisco Systems, Inc.vsWSOU Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development

Cisco’s petition to reinstate an IPR against WSOU’s 8,982,691 patent was opposed by the patent owner, who argued the Director correctly denied institution based on efficiency factors and the limited weight of the Sotera stipulation.

patentIPR2025-00376

iRhythm, Inc.vsWelch Allyn, Inc. et al.

An email from the PTAB Director informs Welch Allyn that iRhythm’s Director Review requests for multiple IPRs have been received, outlining a five‑business‑day deadline for a concise response and prohibiting new evidence.

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