The Syngenta v. Willowood case is a classic example of an FTO blind spot.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
When Syngenta sued Willowood over the manufacturing of the pesticide azoxystrobin, their compound patents had already expired. Yet, Syngenta still won because they held process patents related to its production.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Cases like these arise because there\u2019s an issue with FTO search philosophy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Traditional FTOs focus on finding the nouns (e.g., searching for ‘clay catalyst’). But the real risk lies in the verbs and functional descriptions (e.g., what the catalyst is made of, how it’s treated, how it\u2019s implemented in the process etc.).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The most effective FTO approach deconstructs the underlying scientific principles of your process to find functionally identical patents, even when they use different language. That’s exactly how our methodology works- going beyond simple keyword matching.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
For example, while helping a client manufacturing spandex with a clay-based catalyst, my team uncovered a high-risk patent. This patent didn’t mention ‘clay’ anywhere. Instead, it claimed synthesis with “acid-treated silica-alumina.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Our in-house experts immediately flagged this. They knew that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This helped us connect the dots and identify a serious threat that a simple keyword search would\u2019ve missed. In short, finding the threats buried in the “how,” not just the “what.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":55484,"parent":0,"template":"","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_angie_page":false,"content-type":"","service_relation":["21023","42062","21448"],"industry_relation":["61112","61053"]},"newsletter_category":[1856,1818],"class_list":["post-101741","newsletter","type-newsletter","status-publish","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","newsletter_category-agriculture","newsletter_category-chemicals"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n