Monsanto seed patent case headed to Supreme Court
Monsanto Corp. is no stranger to the legal system. But the agriculture giant is now headed to the highest courtroom in the land, after the Supreme Court announced earlier this month that it will review a case involving the companys patented seeds.
October 17, 2012 at 08:51 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Monsanto Corp. is no stranger to the legal system. But the agriculture giant is now headed to the highest courtroom in the land, after the Supreme Court announced earlier this month that it will review a case involving the company's patented seeds.
The plaintiff in the case is Vernon Hugh Bowman, an Indiana farmer who regularly purchased Monsanto's pesticide-resistant soybean seeds for the spring/early summer growing season. After harvesting his first crop, however, Bowman occasionally tried to plant seeds for a second harvest. In an attempt to save money, Bowman often bought cheap seeds from grain elevators and fellow farmers, or simply used seeds that he had saved from previous seasons.
Unfortunately for Bowman, 94 percent of the soybeans grown in Indiana come from Monsanto seeds. And because Bowman neglected to pay the company a separate “technology fee” for planting these crops, Monsanto sued, winning $84,000 from the farmer last September.
Bowman has appealed the case all the way to the Supreme Court, arguing that “patent exhaustion delimits rights of patent holders by eliminating the right to control or prohibit use of the invention after an authorized sale.” According to the farmer, the Federal Circuit erred by refusing to find exhaustion after the seeds had already been used for their original purpose.
Read more at NPR.
For more InsideCounsel coverage of Monsanto, see:
Jury awards Monsanto $1 billion in patent infringement case against DuPont
Monsanto accuses DuPont of copying seed technology
Organic growers appeal case against Monsanto
Federal judge dismisses farmers' class action suit against Monsanto
Monsanto poisoned French farmer, court rules
Monsanto Corp. is no stranger to the legal system. But the agriculture giant is now headed to the highest courtroom in the land, after the Supreme Court announced earlier this month that it will review a case involving the company's patented seeds.
The plaintiff in the case is Vernon Hugh Bowman, an Indiana farmer who regularly purchased Monsanto's pesticide-resistant soybean seeds for the spring/early summer growing season. After harvesting his first crop, however, Bowman occasionally tried to plant seeds for a second harvest. In an attempt to save money, Bowman often bought cheap seeds from grain elevators and fellow farmers, or simply used seeds that he had saved from previous seasons.
Unfortunately for Bowman, 94 percent of the soybeans grown in Indiana come from Monsanto seeds. And because Bowman neglected to pay the company a separate “technology fee” for planting these crops, Monsanto sued, winning $84,000 from the farmer last September.
Bowman has appealed the case all the way to the Supreme Court, arguing that “patent exhaustion delimits rights of patent holders by eliminating the right to control or prohibit use of the invention after an authorized sale.” According to the farmer, the Federal Circuit erred by refusing to find exhaustion after the seeds had already been used for their original purpose.
Read more at NPR.
For more InsideCounsel coverage of Monsanto, see:
Jury awards Monsanto $1 billion in patent infringement case against DuPont
Monsanto accuses DuPont of copying seed technology
Organic growers appeal case against Monsanto
Federal judge dismisses farmers' class action suit against Monsanto
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllRecent Controversial Decision and Insurance Law May Mitigate Exposure for Companies Subject to False Claims Act Lawsuits
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1'Shame on Us': Lawyer Hits Hard After Judge's Suicide
- 2Upholding the Integrity of the Rule of Law Amid Trump 2.0
- 3Connecticut Movers: New Laterals, Expanding Teams
- 4Eliminating Judicial Exceptions: The Promise of the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act
- 5AI in Legal: Disruptive Potential and Practical Realities
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250