直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
    • AI + Finnegan
    • Appeals, Issues, and Legal Strategy
    • Diligence, Licensing, and Opinions
    • Global IP Enforcement, Litigation, and Trials
    • Patent Office Invalidation Proceedings
    • Prosecution and Portfolio Management
    • Trademark and Brand Management
    • AI, Electronics, and Information Technology
    • Chemicals, Industrials, and Materials
    • Communications
    • Consumer Goods and Services
    • Energy
    • Hospitality, Gaming, and Leisure
    • Life Sciences
    • Transportation and Logistics
  • Experience

Experience

Inter partes reexamination ruling affirmed in favor of Finnegan client DuPont

E. I. du Pont de Nemours

Monsanto Technology

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that all challenged claims of a Monsanto patent covering a process for producing soybeans with a modified fatty acid profile were unpatentable, affirming a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The Court ruled that the Board correctly interpreted the claims and that DuPont’s prior-art Booth patent anticipated and rendered obvious Monsanto’s claims.

E. I. du Pont de Nemours v. Monsanto Technology, 17-1032, -1098, Fed. Cir.

Related Professionals

Michael J. Flibbert
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4493
Email

Related Practices

Appeals, Issues, and Legal Strategy

Federal Circuit and Supreme Court Appeals

Patent Office Invalidation Proceedings

Ex Parte Reexamination (EPR)

Related Industries

Chemical

Energy

Related Experiences

Federal Circuit reverses IPR decision, invalidates all claims challenged by Finnegan clients DuPont and Archer-Daniels-Midland

E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. and Archer Daniels Midland Co.

MacDermid Printing Solutions, LLC v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co.

E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co.

Trading Technologies, Inc. v. CQG, Inc.

Trading Technologies, Inc.

Monsanto Co. v. Syngenta Seeds

Syngenta Seeds

Research Corporation Technologies v. Microsoft Corp.

Research Corporation Technologies

Trading Technologies International, Inc. v. CQG, Inc. 

Trading Technologies International, Inc.

Prolitec Inc. v. Scentair Techs., Inc. 

Prolitec Inc.

Kinetic Technologies, Inc. v. Advanced Analogic Technologies, Inc.

Kinetic Technologies, Inc.

Propel Orthodontics successfully beats preliminary injunction motion

Propel Orthodontics, LLC

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP