Syngenta Crop Protection AG v. UPL Ltd.

Syngenta Crop Protection AG v. UPL Ltd. The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board's PGR final written decision holding all challenged claims of UPL's '727 patent unpatentable as anticipated by Godoy and Tobler (claims 1, 3-10) and obvious over De Oliveira in view of Wiglesworth, Godoy, and Tobler (claim 2). It also affirmed the Board's denial of Syngenta's request for leave to file a sanctions motion under the 37 C.F.R. § 42.11(d)(2) safe harbor. The decision shows that a reference that expressly lists the claimed components can anticipate a closed 'consisting of' claim despite alternatives, and that a party's withdrawal of the challenged position bars a Board sanctions motion even where the movant incurred substantial costs. Affirmed. Syngenta won a PGR on a patent claiming fungicidal combinations of benzovindiflupyr, mancozeb, and an EBI or QOI fungicide. UPL appealed the unpatentability rulings; Syngenta cross-appealed the denial of leave to move for sanctions over allegedly fabricated field-trial data. Pleading and claim construction: the Board did not abuse its discretion in finding no prejudicial petition defect, since Syngenta could respond in reply once UPL proposed constructions. The court agreed that 'combination' and 'composition' are interchangeable and cover sequential application, based on the specification and method claims. Anticipation: substantial evidence supported the finding that Nimbus in Godoy is a mineral-oil adjuvant, not a fungicide, so Godoy meets 'consisting of'. Tobler expressly enumerates the claimed three-component combination, so listed alternatives and Mylan do not defeat anticipation. Obviousness: substantial evidence supported a motivation to add benzovindiflupyr to De Oliveira's combinations given Wiglesworth, Tobler, and Godoy. De Oliveira's naming of other SDHIs is no teaching away. Sanctions: Syngenta has standing, but the Board did not abuse its discretion because UPL had withdrawn reliance on the data. The safe-harbor provision in § 42.11(d)(2) is firm and broad, and Spectrum Solutions does not add a good-faith requirement that would defeat it. § 102 § 103 claim construction attorney fees / sanctions standing / jurisdiction non-precedential § 102 § 103 claim construction attorney fees / sanctions standing / jurisdiction non-precedential § 102 § 103 claim construction attorney fees / sanctions