⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The Federal Circuit hears a dispute over a liquid-medicine formulation. Genexa holds a patent covering formulations that combine acetaminophen, agave syrup, and a diluent such as water. The agave provides sweetness, while the claims also specify the viscosity, or thickness, of the finished mixture. KinderFarms challenged the patent before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In March 2025, the Board found the challenged claims unpatentable as obvious. It reasoned that earlier references describing sweetened liquid medicines could be combined to produce the claimed formulations. Genexa is now appealing that decision. The question is not simply whether each ingredient was already known, but whether the challenge adequately explained why a skilled formulator would combine the earlier teachings to make the claimed mixture. Genexa's lawyer will argue that KinderFarms pointed to particular recipes but did not explain the modifications needed to reach the claimed thickness, leaving the Board to fill gaps with hindsight. KinderFarms' lawyer will argue that the references addressed the same taste-masking problem, that their combination was predictable, and that a formulator could adjust water content to achieve the desired final viscosity. Listen for two distinctions: the thickness of agave syrup by itself versus the thickness of the finished medicine, and combining the teachings of earlier references versus requiring one old recipe to contain the entire invention.

Genexa, Inc. v. KinderFarms, LLC (No. 25-1643) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, argued November 6, 2026.