⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

Real court arguments, crisp audio, with context.

Court recordings can be difficult to follow, and many suffer from poor audio quality. This podcast enhances the audio, provides a brief introduction to each case, and explains legal concepts that may be unfamiliar to some listeners.

We hope these enhancements make oral argument recordings easier to understand, more accessible, and more enjoyable to listen to.

Apple Podcasts Spotify YouTube /feed.xml Open RSS

Syngenta Crop Protection AG v. UPL Ltd. — Fed. Cir. (argued September 9, 2026)

No. 25-1018 Argued September 9, 2026 Published September 14, 2026

UPL and Syngenta dispute UPL's patent on three-fungicide crop treatments. UPL said combining mancozeb and benzovindiflupyr with a third fungicide improved disease control. Syngenta challenged all ten claims in post-grant review, a Patent Trial and Appeal Board proceeding that tests a recently issued patent. The Board found the claims unpatentable, ruling that earlier Godoy and Tobler publications disclosed or made obvious the claimed mixtures. UPL appeals. It says Syngenta's petition ignored a key boundary: in patent drafting, ‘consisting of’ normally limits a combination to the listed ingredients. UPL also says Godoy is ambiguous about a product called Nimbus and Tobler offers too many possible mixtures to reveal these exact ones. Anticipation requires one earlier reference to disclose every claim limitation; a list qualifies only if a skilled reader would immediately envision the claimed combination. Syngenta will defend the ruling and separately asks to revive a proposed sanctions motion. It alleged that field trials described in the patent never occurred; UPL disputed that and withdrew reliance on those trials. The Board then declined to authorize the motion.

Syngenta Crop Protection AG v. UPL Ltd. (No. 25-1018) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, argued September 9, 2026.

Sources
Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105):https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/oral-arguments/25-1018_09092026.mp3
Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit:https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/home/oral-argument/listen-to-oral-arguments/
September 2026 argument calendar — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit:https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/OralArguments/PublicCalendar-September2026.pdf
PGR2023-00017 final written decision — Patent Trial and Appeal Board:https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1550951/download-documents?artifactId=rC-zLAcYdRiknkrDgVcSshgGoLcVaoA5Bo6suJ-sNWgypfSkk6P4BeA
UPL notice of appeal — Patent Trial and Appeal Board:https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1550951/download-documents?artifactId=-W2WOYq0DNRKTOZd4GGLjhMMjwfQ9Wpqvfh3Ax3_jAMyPLPoeFCwqyM
Syngenta sanctions-issue notice of appeal — Patent Trial and Appeal Board:https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1550951/download-documents?artifactId=6Hk9UTWUhssTDkd2Ptim4fl3ybtrZYWYqGlPTGMVbNiPV0B24gtLeHQ
U.S. Patent 11,445,727 — U.S. Patent and Trademark Office patent record:https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/54/af/44/8199af6a0cbbdf/US11445727.pdf
Post-grant review — U.S. Patent and Trademark Office:https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/trials/post-grant-review
‘Consisting of’ claim language — Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 2111.03:https://mpep.uspto.gov/RDMS/MPEP/print?href=d0e197004.html&version=e8r9
Mark Feldstein — Finnegan:https://www.finnegan.com/en/professionals/mark-j-feldstein-ph-d.html
Charles Carson — BakerHostetler:https://www.bakerlaw.com/professionals/charles-c-carson/

0:00
0:00