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

PGR2024-00020

Inari Agriculture challenges Pioneer’s corn‑seed patent, arguing that the PTAB’s denial of institution improperly rewards secrecy of parent lines. The petitioner seeks Director Review to overturn the decision and prevent a precedent that could undermine disclosure in plant‑breeding patents.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
PGR2024-00020
Filing Date
3 June 2024
Status
ok

Related Cases

patentIPR2025-00287

Biofrontera Incorporated et al.vsSun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.

Biofrontera has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate eight claims of Sun Pharma’s photodynamic‑therapy device patent, arguing obviousness over Lundahl, Larsen, Hente and Perutz. The petition argues the prior art was not previously considered and that the Board should not deny the petition under §325(d) or Fintiv.

patentIPR2026-00279

Fifth Third Bank, National AssociationvsUnited Services Automobile Association

Fifth Third Bank has filed a petition to have the PTAB institute an IPR against USAA’s 12,159,310 patent covering mobile check‑deposit methods, asserting that all 16 claims are obvious over a body of prior art.

patentIPR2024-01119

Apple Inc.vsSmith Interface Technologies, LLC

The PTAB issued a final written decision finding that the challenged claims were not obvious over the asserted prior art combinations. The Board specifically rejected arguments regarding progressive menu sliding during gesture detection.

patentIPR2024-00743

Cala Health, Inc.vsEMKinetics, Inc.

The Board issued an order granting Cala Health and EMKinetics' joint request to keep their Confidential Settlement Agreement private under 37 C.F.R. §42.74(c). The agreement will be treated as business confidential information and kept separate from the patent file.

patentIPR2024-00978

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsCerence Operating Company et al.

The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for Samsung against Cerence regarding claims related to voice messaging in mobile devices. The Board accepted the Petitioner's mapping that prior art discloses key elements, despite challenges from the Patent Owner on claim definitions.

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