US 8227236

I'll search for this specific patent number across the requested sources.

Let me check for any litigation/docket activity and confirm the granted claims.

Let me verify the granted claims and abstract directly, and check for any litigation.

Search summary — US 8,227,236

Scope note on my searches. I ran the specific number 8227236 against open web indexes that surface USPTO/Google Patents/Justia/PubChem records and against Federal Circuit (CAFC) material. I excluded obvious distractors that contain the same digit string but are unrelated documents — e.g., German utility model DE 8227236 U1 (a 1983 machine-tool storage device), and a Zenodo DOI 10.5281/zenodo.8227236. Those are not the patent you asked about.

I could not find any CAFC 2026 docket entry, appeal, IPR, or district-court activity involving US 8,227,236. That is a negative finding, not proof that none exists — my search returned no 2026 CAFC list, Rule 36 docket, or litigation caption naming this patent. Treat "no litigation found" as unverified. It is also consistent with the patent's record status (see below).

Bibliographic data (as returned)

Primary source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US8227236/en and the Justia patent-history record (https://patents.justia.com/patent/8227236).

Abstract

"Provided herein are genetically modified microorganisms that have enhanced fermentation activity, and methods for making and using such microorganisms."

That is the abstract text as indexed; it is short and generic — the substance of the patent is in the specification and claims, not the abstract.

Plain-language overview of the independent claims

Important caveat. The granted-claim text was not reproduced in the full text I was given, and my searches returned the claim set for the pre-grant publication US 2011/0166561 A1 (Justia) alongside the granted record. The two are related but claim scope frequently changes between publication and grant. The overview below reflects the claim themes that are consistently reported for this family; I flag the specific points where I cannot confirm the granted wording.

The patent family is directed to engineered yeast (notably Saccharomyces spp., e.g. S. cerevisiae) with rewired sugar metabolism and controlled growth, in three broad claim families:

(A) Composition claims — an engineered yeast that switches glycolysis pathway on demand.
An engineered Saccharomyces yeast carrying genetic alterations that (i) add or increase phosphogluconate dehydratase, 2-keto-3-deoxygluconate-6-phosphate (KDPG) aldolase, and 6-phosphogluconolactonase activities — i.e., build an Entner-Doudoroff (ED) pathway — and (ii) reduce or remove phosphofructokinase activity (PFK1, PFK2, or both) in the Embden-Meyerhof (EM) pathway. The practical effect: under aerobic conditions the yeast grows normally on six-carbon sugars via EM glycolysis, and when fermentation conditions change (typically a switch to anaerobiosis) the EM pathway is throttled and carbon is routed preferentially through the ED pathway. Reported dependent claims specify the yeast species/strain, E. coli or Pseudomonas aeruginosa sources for the heterologous ED enzymes, SEQ ID NO: 70 for the dehydratase, a heterologous or multi-copy 6-phosphogluconolactonase, and plasmid-borne vs. genomically integrated constructs. In the published version, claim 1 also recites a "nucleotide sequence identification tag" selected from six specific nucleotide sequences — a barcode-style element. I am not confident the barcode limitation survived into the granted claim 1, so verify against the granted claim text before relying on it.

Uncertainty flag: The Google Patents full text also describes an alternative genetic-modification route — inserting a heterologous promoter in operable linkage with an EM pathway gene (e.g., PFK) so the promoter's activity is altered by the fermentation switch, or deleting/disrupting the EM gene and supplying a heterologous, anaerobically down-regulated copy. Whether these are in independent or dependent claims in the granted patent, I cannot confirm.

(B) Composition claims — engineered yeast whose cell division is arrested by a fermentation switch.
An engineered microorganism with a genetic modification that inhibits cell division, cell proliferation, cell-cycle progression, or induces cell-cycle arrest when fermentation conditions change (e.g., shift to anaerobic conditions, or a temperature shift). In the described embodiments the modification is a heterologous promoter operably linked to a cell-cycle-regulating polypeptide — notably thymidylate synthase — whose promoter activity drops under the changed conditions; a temperature-sensitive mutation is an alternative. The commercial rationale is nutrient diversion: stop the cells dividing and send the carbon to product.

(C) Method claims.
Two-step culturing methods: (a) culture the engineered microorganism under a first set of conditions (aerobic) to build biomass, then (b) culture under a second, different set of conditions (anaerobic, or elevated temperature) that throttles cell division and/or reroutes glycolysis, whereby the microorganism produces the target product. Reported dependent claims limit the target product to ethanol or succinic acid, allow feedstock as six-carbon sugars (glucose) and/or five-carbon sugars (xylulose, xylose) and biomass, and recite a yield of greater than about 0.3 g product per g glucose added, plus downstream steps: purifying the target product, modifying it to a modified product, placing cells/product into a container, and shipping.

A further method family is described: manufacturing such a microorganism by (a) introducing the genetic modification and (b) selecting for organisms that (i) use EM glycolysis aerobically and (ii) preferentially use the Entner-Doudoroff pathway anaerobically.

Points of caution

• Independent-claim count and exact wording: not authoritatively verified. I did not retrieve the granted claim set verbatim. The overview above is a faithful summary of the disclosed claim families, but the granted independent claims may be narrower than the published ones (in particular the barcode/"nucleotide sequence identification tag" element).
• "Expired – Fee Related" is Google Patents' automated legal-status field, not a legal conclusion. The anticipated 2030-07-09 expiration is likewise Google's calculation from the July 9, 2009 priority date — unusual for a 2011 filing and probably reflecting an adjusted term or terminal disclaimer I have not verified.
• No CAFC 2026 docket activity found — I cannot represent that none exists, only that my searches surfaced none.
• The "as-of" dates in this task are inconsistent with each other (the system notice says 2026-09-26; the request says April 26, 2026). This does not affect the patent facts above, which are historical.

Bottom line: US 8,227,236 is a Verdezyne, Inc. biotechnology patent (Picataggio, Salmon, LaPlaza) issued July 24, 2012 from application 13/045,855, claiming engineered Saccharomyces yeast with an inducible glycolysis-pathway switch (ED-pathway enzymes added, PFK reduced), an inducible cell-division-arrest modification (thymidylate synthase / temperature-sensitive), and two-stage fermentation methods producing ethanol or succinic acid at >0.3 g/g glucose.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 8227236 across patent litigation resources.

Initial results returned unrelated "723" patents and non-patent hits. Let me run more targeted searches.

Bottom line

I found no litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 8,227,236. No district court action, no CAFC appeal, and no PTAB proceeding (IPR/PGR) naming that patent was identified. I am reporting this as "no known litigation," not as an affirmative certification — see the confidence caveats below.

Confirmation of the patent (interpreted literally, no auto-correction)

From the authoritative full text provided (https://patents.google.com/patent/[US8227236](/patent/US8227236)/en):

Note the expiration date: for this patent the anticipated term runs to 2030-07-09. That date is a term calculation, not a litigation date.

Near-miss hits you should NOT treat as this patent

Searching for "723" surfaced several unrelated matters that a harried associate could easily mis-cite. All were verified as different patents:

1. NextGen Innovations, LLC "723 Patent" (telecommunications). This is a different patent — a networking/optical communications patent whose named owners include Alexander Soto and Walter Soto, asserted against Infinera Corporation, Nokia of America, AT&T Services, Fujitsu Network Communications, and II-VI in E.D. Tex. and N.D. Cal. (e.g., NextGen Innovations, LLC v. Infinera Corp., No. 2:22-cv-00306-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.), filed Aug. 9, 2022; IPRs IPR2021-01359 and IPR2023-00681). Subject matter and ownership are wholly different from the Verdezyne fermentation patent. Cited only to exclude it: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1553915](/patent/1553915)/download-documents

2. A D. Del. "723 patent" about amino-acid seed crystals (1:17-cv-00313, D. Del.), addressing prosecution history estoppel and "average particle size" limitations. Different patent, different technology.

3. U.S. Patent No. 822,723 (1906, ball bearings, E.D. Pa.). Google's search engine treats "8227236" as close to "822,723"; this is a 1906 patent with no relationship.

Google Patent "prior art keyword" and family data for US 8,227,236 also do not identify any litigation. Related Verdezyne family filings (e.g., applications 13/045,841 and 13/045,847) likewise surfaced no litigation.

Search sources attempted and their limits

Caveats on confidence:

• I could not directly query the Unified Patents litigation portal (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist), PACER, or Docket Navigator/Lex Machina in this session, and I hit a search-step limit before completing every planned query. Absence from general web search is weaker evidence than absence from those dockets.
• Docket-level coverage of small-cap biotech patent suits from the early-to-mid 2010s is spotty in free web indexes, so a short-lived or dismissed action could theoretically be invisible to my searches.

Practical context worth noting

• Verdezyne was a small Carlsbad, California industrial-biotech company. The patent is directed to engineered yeast with enhanced fermentation activity (e.g., Entner-Doudoroff pathway engineering, temperature/anaerobic-switch cell-division control). Patents of this type are frequently licensed rather than asserted, and the "Expired – Fee Related" status is consistent with the patent having lapsed for non-payment of maintenance fees rather than being litigated to judgment. (I state Verdezyne's corporate trajectory with moderate, not high, confidence; verify independently.)
• Because the patent is expired for fee non-payment, any past infringement exposure would be historical only — which reduces the likelihood of any current pending action, though it does not preclude a closed, past case.

Recommended next steps to firm this up

If you need a defensible "no litigation" opinion, I would verify against:

1. PACER — party-name dockets for "Verdezyne" across all districts (search both plaintiff and defendant).
2. Unified Patents litigation portal, using the exact number "8,227,236" (not "723").
3. Docket Navigator or Lex Machina — patent-number search (these index complaints even where patents are unasserted in the results).
4. USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board — search for 8,227,236 to confirm no IPR/PGR.
5. USPTO Assignment records for reel/frame history, which may reveal a security interest, sale, or litigation-related transfer (the 2011 assignment from the three inventors to Verdezyne is already shown on the face of the Google Patents record).

Prepared as an attorney work product note. It is not a legal opinion and not a substitute for a docket-based clearance search. I did not locate any decision or docket identifying litigation on US 8,227,236, and I am expressly flagging that my conclusion rests on web-search and public-patent-record evidence rather than a direct PACER/Unified Patents query.