"In its decision, the PTAB denied Inari's obviousness challenge because it failed to sequence and analyze the genome of the deposited seed that defines the claimed plant variety. Inari argues this creates an unconstitutional "Catch-22" where challengers must risk patent infringement liability to file adequate PGR petitions, violating due process and separation of powers principles. [ In re_-_ Inari Agriculture, Inc. Petition]."
"The '803 patent claims "seed, plant, plant part, or plant cell of inbred maize variety 1PFLQ21, representative seed of the variety having been deposited under NCMA accession number 202212046." The specification describes the variety solely through phenotypic characteristics (plant height, silk color, ear length) listed in Table 1, without providing genetic sequence data. Inari's PGR petition argued the claims were obvious based on prior art disclosing the variety's parent line PH1V5T and related varieties with similar phenotypic properties."
A mandamus petition asks the Federal Circuit to overturn the PTAB's denial of institution for a PGR challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,659,803. The '803 patent claims seed, plant, plant part, or plant cell of inbred maize variety 1PFLQ21, with representative seed deposited under NCMA accession number 202212046. The specification describes the variety only by phenotypic characteristics such as plant height, silk color, and ear length in Table 1 and provides no genetic sequence data. The PTAB denied Inari's obviousness challenge because Inari did not sequence and analyze the genome of the deposited seed. Inari argues that requirement forces challengers to risk infringement liability and creates a constitutional Catch-22. The petition relied on prior art disclosing parent line PH1V5T and phenotypic comparisons under Ex parte C. The dispute arises amid broader litigation and a strategy of keeping parent lines secret.
Read at Patently-O
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]