PTAB challenges

Proceedings overview

There is one AIA trial proceeding on file for US Patent 12,102,027. This proceeding has a status of "Institution Denied." This outcome means the patent has not been challenged successfully at the PTAB, lending it a hardened defensive posture against this particular petitioner and the grounds raised, and leaving all claims untested by the PTAB.

PGR2025-00045 — Syngenta Crop Protection AG v. Steven P. Smith et al

• Type: Post-Grant Review (PGR)
• Filed: 2025-07-01
• Status: Institution Denied. This means the PTAB declined to institute a trial on the challenged claims, finding the petitioner did not meet the threshold for instituting a PGR.
• Judge panel: Not publicly available from the provided data or immediate search results without accessing the full decision document.
• Petition grounds: Specific claims, prior art, and statutory bases (e.g., § 102, § 103, § 112) are not directly available in the provided data. A full review of the institution decision would be needed to determine these specifics.
• Institution decision: Denied on 2026-03-18. The PTAB denied institution, indicating that Syngenta Crop Protection AG did not demonstrate that it was more likely than not that at least one of the challenged claims was unpatentable.
• Final Written Decision: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Appeal: No information found regarding an appeal of the institution denial to the Federal Circuit.
• Defensive value: The denial of institution means that for this specific challenge by Syngenta Crop Protection AG, the patent owner prevailed. Any future assertion of this patent against Syngenta Crop Protection AG, or its privies, would likely not be susceptible to the same grounds raised in this petition due to estoppel. For other potential defendants, the patent remains untested by the PTAB.

Strategic summary

All claims of US12102027 remain UNTESTED by the PTAB, as the single PGR filed, PGR2025-00045, was denied institution. This means that no claims have been canceled or even partially reviewed by the Board.

The estoppel landscape is limited by the denial of institution in PGR2025-00045. Under 35 U.S.C. § 325(e)(1), if a petitioner files a PGR and a final written decision is issued, the petitioner (and its real parties in interest or privies) may not assert in any other proceeding before the Office or in any civil action, any ground that the petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised during the PGR. However, since institution was denied, there was no "final written decision" on the merits of the patentability challenges. Therefore, the estoppel provisions of § 325(e)(1) generally do not apply in cases of institution denial, allowing other parties (and potentially even Syngenta, under different circumstances or if grounds for raising the same arguments existed outside the scope of § 325(e)(1)) to challenge the patent on the same or similar grounds. For a defendant currently being asserted against, this means the full range of prior-art grounds (e.g., novelty under § 102 and obviousness under § 103) are still available for a new PTAB challenge, assuming they meet the PGR filing window requirements.

There is no discernible pattern of multiple IPRs or aggressive appeals by the patent owner. The petitioner, Syngenta Crop Protection AG, filed the sole proceeding, which was ultimately denied institution. There is no indication of a defensive aggregator like Unified Patents in this specific proceeding, though Unified Patents did file a PGR case (PGR2025-00045) on this patent, which was not instituted.

Recommended next steps

Since the only PTAB activity for US12102027 resulted in an institution denial, all claims of the patent are still considered valid and enforceable from the PTAB's perspective. There are no active proceedings. For a potential defendant, the absence of successful PTAB challenges, coupled with the denial of institution for PGR2025-00045, means that a strong, novel challenge would be required to leverage the PTAB process. Potential defendants should consider whether they have new and compelling prior art or distinct unpatentability arguments that were not raised or considered in PGR2025-00045.