Untitled case

This is a Post-Grant Review (PGR) case, PGR2025-00055, filed at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) against US patent 12089543. The case has been instituted and is currently pending.

The patent owner is Fienile Agronegocios Ltda, a Brazilian operating company specializing in agricultural technology, particularly innovative irrigation systems with artificial outdoor lighting aimed at increasing crop productivity. The petitioner for this specific PGR, PGR2025-00055, is not publicly identified in the available records. The asserted patent, US Patent 12089543, is titled "System and method of agricultural management." It technically describes a modular agricultural irrigation pivot-like device equipped with artificial LED lighting sources that can adjust spectral bands for crop cultivation, alongside determining and implementing irrigation and light supplementation routines.

The procedural posture of this case is a Post-Grant Review before the PTAB. The petition for PGR2025-00055 was filed and subsequently instituted on December 1, 2025. This institution decision, along with others, marked the first set of IPRs and PGRs instituted under the tenure of Director John A. Squires, who assumed the role in September 2025. Under recent procedural changes effective October 20, 2025, the Director, in consultation with at least three PTAB judges, now makes all institution decisions for IPR and PGR proceedings, evaluating discretionary and merits-based considerations. [cite: 5, 7, 12 from prior steps]

This case is notable as one of the initial PGRs to be instituted under the new leadership of Director Squires, providing an early indication of the PTAB's approach to institution decisions, including factors related to discretionary denials. At the time of its institution, PGR2025-00055 did not involve any co-pending litigation. [cite: 3 from prior steps]

I'll research the actual procedural record. Note upfront: the task frames this as "patent infringement litigation," but the case metadata identifies PGR2025-00055 as a PTAB post-grant review — I'll verify whether any district court case exists in parallel.

Confirmed key facts: Petitioner is Almendra Pte. Ltd. (filed 2025-06-16, instituted 2025-12-01), PO counsel is Polsinelli. Let me dig into the docket and check for parallel litigation.

Now let me check the PGR docket status through 2026, the reissue application, and any parallel litigation.

Threshold correction: there is no district court litigation to report

The task asks for the "key legal developments" of a patent infringement litigation — complaint, answer, Markman, verdict, JMOL, etc. No such case exists. The metadata is correct that PGR2025-00055 is a PTAB post-grant review, and the searches confirm there is no parallel Article III case:

• Patent Owner's 2025-07-08 mandatory notices (Paper 4, Polsinelli as counsel) stated that "Patent Owner is not aware of any judicial or administrative proceedings involving U.S. Patent No. 12,089,543."
• Patent Owner's superseding 2025-09-08 mandatory notices (Patterson IP Law) disclosed only one related matter: pending Reissue Application No. 19/322,633 — no litigation.
• No PACER/docket source surfaced any Fienile Agronegocios infringement suit, and no defendant or defense counsel exists to report. The earlier sections' statements on this point (including "plaintiff"/"defendant" representatives) are consistent with this.

I therefore report the PGR itself as the operative "litigation," mapped onto your requested categories, and flag where a category is inapplicable.

Two contradictions with the previously generated sections (flagged per instructions)

1. Petitioner identity. The Case Overview says "the petitioner for this specific PGR … is not publicly identified." That is wrong. The petitioner is Almendra Pte. Ltd. (Singapore-based), named in every PTAB filing, e.g., Almendra Pte. Ltd. v. Fienile Agronecócios Ltda., PGR2025-00055 (PTAB). The later "Plaintiff/Defendant representatives" sections already correct this.
2. Dating artifacts. The Plaintiff/Defendant sections are stamped "as of May 19, 2026," which predates today (2026-10-17) by five months and is not a date supported by any source I found. Treat those "as of" dates as unsourced. The substantive conclusion (no district court case) still holds.

I also could not independently verify the earlier sections' assertions about the 2025-10-20 institution-decision procedural change and Director Squires's role in this particular institution; see the caveat under item 4 below.

---

Chronology of key developments

1. Patent issuance (background) — 2024-09-17

US 12,089,543 B2 ("System and method of agricultural management") issued to Fienile Agronegócios Ltda as a national-stage entry (App. No. 18/292,837, filed 2024-01-26) of PCT/BR2022/050461, with a WO counterpart published as WO2023/197049A1. Per the petition, the claims issued "without significant examination" — a point Almendra leveraged throughout (Pet. 14–15).

2. Petition filed — 2025-06-16

Almendra Pte. Ltd. filed the PGR challenging all of claims 1–7 on four grounds (Pet. 28–91): (1) indefiniteness under § 112(b) (e.g., the undefined coined term "dimerizer," subjective "catchall" language, lack of antecedent basis for "the artificial intelligence model," allegedly unintelligible process limitations); (2) lack of enablement under § 112(a); (3) § 101 abstract-idea ineligibility ("providing plants with light, water, and soil"); and (4) obviousness over Rosen (US 2019/0098843) and Richardville (US 2021/0185945), with Singh (US 2016/0198640) also cited. Supporting evidence included a declaration from Dr. John Long (Ex. 1003–1004). Petitioner's counsel of record: Thomas F. Finch (lead), Kenneth A. Knox (backup), plus a third attorney (service emails on the pkhip.com domain). Source: petition and exhibit list, PTAB P-TACTS docket for PGR2025-00055.

Filing on 2025-06-16 is within nine months of the 2024-09-17 issuance, which is why PGR (with its broader §§ 101/112 eligibility) rather than IPR was available.

3. Patent Owner's first appearance and counsel — 2025-07-08

Fienile filed mandatory notices through Polsinelli PC — lead James P. Murphy (Reg. 55,474, Houston), backup Ryan Murphy (Reg. 66,285) and R. James Balls (Reg. 57,703), Washington, D.C. Notably, this filing affirmatively represented that no other judicial or administrative proceeding involving the '543 patent existed.

4. Change of Patent Owner counsel — 2025-09-08

Fienile switched to Patterson Intellectual Property Law, P.C. (Nashville) — lead Seth R. Ogden (Reg. 65,168), with Mark A. Kilgore (Reg. 75,994) and Sam A. Raque (Reg. 77,890) — filing a power of attorney and new mandatory notices that same day. (The Polsinelli-to-Patterson handoff is documented by the differing counsel blocks and service certificates in the two sets of mandatory notices, and by PO's extension request referencing a notice of appearance entered 2025-09-08.) The earlier sections' statement that counsel "are not readily available" is superseded by this record.

5. PO's discretionary-denial request premised on a reissue — 2025-09-08/09

This is the most strategically significant pre-institution event. Roughly three months after the petition, and on the day its discretionary-denial brief was due, Fienile filed Reissue Application No. 19/322,633 and then filed Patent Owner's Request for Discretionary Denial (Paper 7), arguing the PGR was duplicative of the co-pending reissue and should be denied. Procedurally:

• 2025-09-08: counsel attempted to file via P-TACTS but could not select the correct document type, and emailed the paper and exhibit to the Board and opposing counsel.
• 2025-09-09: the Board (Director Discretionary Decision mailbox) granted a one-day extension, making PO's discretionary-denial brief due no later than 2025-09-09. Source: Board email correspondence in the PGR2025-00055 docket.

Almendra's opposition characterized the maneuver as an attempt to "subvert the Board (and Congress) by asserting an entirely novel theory for discretionary denial" — i.e., that merely filing a reissue could foreclose PGR — and argued that accepting it "would obviate the very purpose of the PGR framework," invoking SAS Institute v. Iancu, 584 U.S. 357 (2018), Thryv v. Click-to-Call, 590 U.S. 45 (2020), and Celgene v. Peter, 931 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2019). It also distinguished PO's "overlapping proceedings" authority.

6. Institution — 2025-12-01

The Board instituted PGR2025-00055 on 2025-12-01, necessarily denying PO's discretionary-denial request. Status per the IPVerse PTAB tracker: "Trial Instituted," institution decision date 2025-12-01. Caveat: I could not retrieve the institution decision's text (Paper number, panel composition, or claim-by-claim institution), and the tracker shows "Decision documents — decision pending." So I cannot confirm from primary sources which grounds/claims were instituted, nor whether the decision was styled as a Director decision under the post-2025-10-20 procedure described in the earlier Case Overview. The earlier sections' characterization of this as one of the first institutions under Director Squires should be treated as unverified pending the decision document.

7. Post-institution proceedings — 2026

No final written decision, termination, settlement, or adverse judgment was located as of 2026-10-17. Under 35 U.S.C. § 326(a)(11), the FWD deadline runs one year from institution, i.e., on or about 2026-12-01, so the case is in its final ~6 weeks. Nothing in the public record I found reflects a POPR on the merits, a scheduling order, a motion to amend, or settlement discussions. (The earlier sections assert the case is "pending — instituted," which is consistent.)

8. Reissue application as the parallel proceeding of record

The only "parallel proceeding" is Reissue App. No. 19/322,633 (filed ~September 2025, prosecuted by Polsinelli per the reissue transmittal showing James Balls). Its effect on the PGR is potentially dispositive in either direction:

• If reissue issues with narrowed/amended claims before the FWD, Fienile would likely argue mootness or seek to have the PGR address the reissued claims;
• If the PGR results in cancellation of claims 1–7, the reissue's value collapses (a reissue cannot recapture cancelled claims); conversely, a reissue that surrenders the challenged claims could render the PGR moot and is functionally an adverse judgment.

I could not verify the reissue's current prosecution status (whether any office action issued or a reissue patent granted), and no PGR filing in the record dispatches that question. This is the single biggest open factual gap.

---

Categories requested that do not apply

Bottom line

PGR2025-00055 is the entire dispute: Almendra Pte. Ltd. petitioned on 2025-06-16 to cancel claims 1–7 of US 12,089,543 on §§ 101, 112(a), 112(b), and 103 grounds; Fienile retained Polsinelli, then Patterson, and lost its bid to defeat institution via a discretionary-denial argument built on a newly filed reissue (19/322,633); the Board instituted on 2025-12-01 after granting PO a one-day filing extension on 2025-09-09. The case is pending with a FWD deadline around 2026-12-01, and the reissue's fate is the key variable that could moot or reshape the outcome before then.

Principal sources: PTAB P-TACTS docket documents for PGR2025-00055 (Petition and exhibit list; PO Mandatory Notices dated 2025-07-08 and 2025-09-08; Petitioner's Opposition to Request for Discretionary Denial; Board email re extension dated 2025-09-09), accessible via ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1558024/...; IPVerse PTAB case page for PGR2025-00055 (https://ipverse.greyb.com/ptab-web/cases/case-details/PGR2025-00055); Arctic Invent PTAB case summary; Google Patents bibliographic data for US 12,089,543 B2 / WO2023/197049A1. Institution decision text, reissue prosecution status, and any 2026 docket activity remain unverified from primary sources.

As of May 19, 2026, there is no publicly identified U.S. district court patent infringement case where Fienile Agronegocios Ltda is a plaintiff asserting US Patent 12089543. The previous summary noted that "At the time of its institution, PGR2025-00055 did not involve any co-pending litigation." Therefore, information on counsel for a "plaintiff" in such a case cannot be provided.

However, in the ongoing Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceeding, PGR2025-00055, at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), the parties are the Petitioner, Almendra Pte. Ltd., and the Patent Owner, Fienile Agronegocios Ltda. Specific counsel of record for these parties in PGR2025-00055 are not readily available in the provided search results. Further detailed docket searching would be required to identify the specific attorneys and their firms representing Almendra Pte. Ltd. and Fienile Agronegocios Ltda in this particular PGR.

As of May 19, 2026, no U.S. district court patent infringement case asserting US Patent 12089543 has been publicly identified. Consequently, there are no named defendants or corresponding defense counsel to report in such a litigation. The previous case summary explicitly stated that "At the time of its institution, PGR2025-00055 did not involve any co-pending litigation," and no subsequent related infringement litigation has been identified in public records.

The only active proceeding involving US Patent 12089543 is the Post-Grant Review (PGR) case, PGR2025-00055, at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). In this PGR, Fienile Agronegocios Ltda is the Patent Owner, effectively "defending" its patent against the Petitioner, Almendra Pte. Ltd. While specific counsel of record for Fienile Agronegocios Ltda in PGR2025-00055 are not readily available in general search results, identifying them would require direct access to the PTAB's PRPS docket for PGR2025-00055.