SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION AG v. UPL LTD.

Why It Matters

Review the linked PDF before publication. The extracted conclusion below is included for audit.

Key Points

• conclusion." Consoli- dated Edison Company of New York v. National Labor Re- lations Board, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938). The Board's determinations of whether a petition adequately presents a particular theory and whether a reply is properly con- fined by, e.g., the applicable bar on the petitioner changing the petition's theory, are, as relevant here, reviewed for abuse of discretion. See Corephotonics, 84 F.4th at 1002– 03 (explaining standards in context of inter partes re- views). A UPL asks us to set aside the Board's unpatentability determination on the ground that there was a set of fatal pleading deficiencies in Syngenta's petition. Specifically, UPL argues that Syngenta's PGR petition was missing le- gally required statements of claim construction and expla- nations in several respects to show how Godoy and Tobler disclose the "consisting of" claim limitation, how De Oliveira discl