⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

Pioneer is trying to preserve a patent on genetically engineered plant cells that use variants of an AAD-12 enzyme to break down two kinds of herbicides, allowing crops to tolerate them. Inari asked the Patent Trial and Appeal Board for post-grant review, an administrative trial testing whether a recently issued patent's claims are valid. The Board held claims one through thirty-three unpatentable for lack of enablement. It found that the patent claimed an enormous range of possible protein sequences without teaching skilled scientists how to identify which ones would work without undue experimentation. Pioneer says the Board wrongly used experiments conducted years after the patent's 2005 and 2006 priority dates and discounted structural guidance in the patent. Inari answers that the later tests used the patent's own methods and confirmed that structure did not reliably predict function. The appeal asks whether the Board applied enablement law correctly and whether substantial evidence supports its findings.

Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. v. Inari Agriculture, Inc. (No. 25-1287) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, argued September 14, 2026.