Federal Circuit Keeps UPL Fungicide Patent Dead, Turns Down Syngenta's Sanctions Bid
On 14 October 2026, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) ruling that cancelled every claim of a fungicide patent owned by Indian agrochemical group UPL. In the same nonprecedential opinion, the court rejected Syngenta's cross-appeal. Syngenta had wanted the Board to consider sanctions over its allegation that field-trial data in the patent were never real.
The patent
US Patent No. 11,445,727 claims fungicidal combinations of three types of active ingredient: a dithiocarbamate (such as mancozeb), a succinate dehydrogenase inhibitor or SDHI (such as benzovindiflupyr), and a third fungicide from the EBI and/or QOI classes. Mixtures of this kind are used against diseases such as Asian soybean rust.
Syngenta challenged the patent in a post-grant review (PGR2023-00017). On 26 July 2024 the PTAB held all claims unpatentable:
- Claims 1, 3–5, 7, 9 and 10 were anticipated by "Godoy", a Brazilian publication.
- Claims 1 and 3–10 were anticipated by Tobler, US Patent No. 9,314,022.
- Claim 2 was obvious over De Oliveira in view of Wiglesworth, Tobler and Godoy.
The appeal (No. 25-1018)
Judge Taranto wrote the opinion for a panel that also included Judges Hughes and Cunningham. UPL attacked two of the Board's readings and lost on both.
First, the court agreed that the claimed "combination" or "composition" covers fungicides applied to a crop one after another, not only those mixed together in one tank. That mattered because the prior art described sequential spray programmes.
Second, the claims use the closed term "consisting of", which excludes additional active ingredients. UPL argued that Godoy's programme included an extra product, "Nimbus", and therefore did not fall within the claims. The Board found, and the court accepted, that Nimbus is not a fungicide, so including it did not take Godoy outside the claims.
The sanctions cross-appeal (No. 25-1019)
The second part of the case is unusual. Syngenta told the Board it suspected that the field trials reported in UPL's patent had never taken place and that the data had been fabricated. Syngenta ran its own field trials in response, and on 24 July 2024, two days before the Board's final decision, it asked for permission to file a sanctions motion. The Board refused on 30 July 2024.
The Federal Circuit first held that Syngenta had standing to appeal that refusal, but then affirmed it. The PTAB's rules contain a "safe harbor" in 37 C.F.R. § 42.11(d)(2): a party facing a sanctions complaint can avoid sanctions by withdrawing the challenged paper or contention within 21 days. UPL had already withdrawn its reliance on the patent's examples in January 2024, so the Board did not abuse its discretion by refusing to entertain the motion.
It is important to be clear about what the court did not decide. It made no finding that UPL's data were fabricated. That remains Syngenta's allegation, and UPL's withdrawal of the examples means no tribunal has tested it.
Why it matters
- "Composition" can mean a spray programme. For agrochemical claims, the ruling confirms that combination wording may be read to cover sequential application, which widens the prior art an applicant has to deal with.
- "Consisting of" is not a shield against harmless extras. A closed claim excludes other active components. An adjuvant that is not itself a fungicide may not take prior art outside the claim.
- The safe harbor works. A patent owner that drops a contested position in time can avoid PTAB sanctions, even when the opponent raises serious questions about candour.
Indonesia angle
Indonesia is a major market for crop-protection products, and fungicide-mixture patents are commonly filed with DJKI. Indonesian patent law, like US law, requires inventions to be new and inventive, and it allows third parties to challenge a granted patent. The Syngenta case is a reminder that "synergistic" mixture claims can fall to prior-art field programmes, including foreign-language publications such as Godoy. We are not aware of an Indonesian court decision addressing allegedly fabricated example data in a patent.
---
Sources
Do you or your clients need trademark, patent, annuity or industrial design work in Indonesia? We handle filings, prosecution and renewals, with updates in English. Email us for a quote.
Contact UsIf you enjoyed this article on our portal, you can buy me a coffee via the PayPal link below.
PayPal
