| For More Information ... |
For more information about the developments surrounding thiamethoxam, click the following links: |
BASEL, Switzerland, and LEVERKUSEN, Germany - The legal battle between Syngenta Crop Protection and Bayer AG over thiamethoxam patents took a significant turn on June 27 when the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) denied Bayer the right to claim priority of its 1988 Japanese foreign priority date for its initial U.S. patent (No. 5,719,146), which covered thiamethoxam. Bayer has since secured a second patent (No. 6,232,309), also covering thiamethoxam.
Thiamethoxam, a class of neonicotinoid insecticides, is the active ingredient in Syngenta’s agricultural seed treatment products Adage and Helix and also in two of Syngenta’s products currently in development - Meridian for lawn and golf applications and Flagship for ornamental applications.
Bayer said its initial patent and its second patent, which was granted May 15, both cover the thiamethoxam class. Therefore, the company has maintained that Syngenta should not be allowed to use thiamethoxam to directly compete against Bayer’s imidacloprid-based product MERIT. Imidacloprid is the active ingredient in MERIT, which is a broad spectrum, systemic insecticide used on turf and ornamentals.
The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences decision means that all claims contained in Bayer’s initial patent are invalid because the compounds claimed were different from those described. The ruling strengthens Syngenta Crop Protection's claim that it was the first to invent thiamethoxam, according to Syngenta Communications Manager Ken Gordon. "Now the company can move forward and market its thiamethoxam-based products," he said. "The USPTO ruling simply reinforces our position that the Bayer patent was invalid."
Although disappointed in the USPTO's ruling, Bayer believes it is still positioned favorably for a legal victory because of the second patent granted to the company, according to Bayer Spokesperson Dr. Franz Josef Placke, Leverkusen, Germany.
"The initial patent (No. 5,719,146) had some formal weaknesses which were due to the practices used to file patents in the United States," Placke said. "Our newest patent (No. 6,232,309) does not have the formal weaknesses as the prior patent. From an intellectual property point of view we are in at least in as good a position as before."
Bayer AG and Syngenta Crop Protection are also involved in a separate patent infringement lawsuit over thiamethoxam filed in 1998 in the Louisiana District Court.
The authors are Internet Editor of PCT Online and Associate Editor of Service Technician magazine, respectively. Additional reporting was provided by Lawn & Landscape Online Internet Editor, Scott Hunsberger.
