Supreme Court appears to side with Monsanto in seed patent case
It looks like another big win for the big guy.
February 21, 2013 at 06:20 AM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
It looks like another big win for the big guy. Agricultural giant Monsanto appeared to steamroll elderly Indiana farmer Vernon Hugh Bowman in oral arguments before the Supreme Court on Tuesday, in a case that will decide if it is infringement to use Monsanto's patented “Roundup Ready” herbicide-resistant soybean seeds without paying the company a fee.
Normally farmers are required to buy new seeds from Monsanto every year—they can't just save the seeds from the crop and replant them. Bowman, thinking he'd found a loophole in the contract, instead purchased a mix of seeds from a grain elevator, which included some Roundup Ready seeds. Monsanto sued him for infringement.
Bowman has argued that patent exhaustion allows him to do whatever he wants with seeds he legally obtained, and that Monsanto is being too extreme.
“The reach of Monsanto's theory is that once that seed is sold, even though title has passed to the farmer, and the farmer assumes all risks associated with farming, that they can still control the ownership of that seed, control how that seed is used,” Bowman's lawyer, Mark P. Walters, said at oral argument.
Lower courts have not been sympathetic to that argument, and now, it seems, neither is the Supreme Court.
The justices were more hostile toward Bowman's lawyers, and Monsanto's lawyers were allowed to talk uninterrupted for long periods, which the New York Times reports is typically a sign of victory to come.
“Without the ability to limit reproduction of soybeans containing this patented trait Monsanto could not have commercialized its invention and never would have produced what is, by now, the most popular agricultural technology in America,” said Seth P. Waxman, lawyer for Monsanto.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. seemed to agree. “Why in the world would anybody spend any money to try to improve the seed if as soon as they sold the first one anybody could grow more and have as many of those seeds as they want?” he asked.
Read more about Monsanto's patented seeds on InsideCounsel:
IP: The Supreme Court levels its eye at agricultural GMOs
Monsanto lawyer says company will sue only farmers who illegally use patented seed technology
Monsanto seed patent case headed to Supreme Court
It looks like another big win for the big guy. Agricultural giant Monsanto appeared to steamroll elderly Indiana farmer Vernon Hugh Bowman in oral arguments before the Supreme Court on Tuesday, in a case that will decide if it is infringement to use Monsanto's patented “Roundup Ready” herbicide-resistant soybean seeds without paying the company a fee.
Normally farmers are required to buy new seeds from Monsanto every year—they can't just save the seeds from the crop and replant them. Bowman, thinking he'd found a loophole in the contract, instead purchased a mix of seeds from a grain elevator, which included some Roundup Ready seeds. Monsanto sued him for infringement.
Bowman has argued that patent exhaustion allows him to do whatever he wants with seeds he legally obtained, and that Monsanto is being too extreme.
“The reach of Monsanto's theory is that once that seed is sold, even though title has passed to the farmer, and the farmer assumes all risks associated with farming, that they can still control the ownership of that seed, control how that seed is used,” Bowman's lawyer, Mark P. Walters, said at oral argument.
Lower courts have not been sympathetic to that argument, and now, it seems, neither is the Supreme Court.
The justices were more hostile toward Bowman's lawyers, and Monsanto's lawyers were allowed to talk uninterrupted for long periods, which the
“Without the ability to limit reproduction of soybeans containing this patented trait Monsanto could not have commercialized its invention and never would have produced what is, by now, the most popular agricultural technology in America,” said Seth P. Waxman, lawyer for Monsanto.
Chief Justice
Read more about Monsanto's patented seeds on InsideCounsel:
IP: The Supreme Court levels its eye at agricultural GMOs
Monsanto lawyer says company will sue only farmers who illegally use patented seed technology
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 AllWhat to Know About the New 'Overlapping Directorship' Antitrust Development
4 minute readThe Met Hires GC of Elite University as Next Legal Chief
Tesla, Musk Appeal Chancery Compensation Case to Delaware Supreme Court
2 minute readTurning Over Legal Tedium to AI Requires Lots of Unglamorous Work on Front End
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Legal Tech's Predictions for Legal Ops & In-House in 2025
- 2SDNY US Attorney Damian Williams Lands at Paul Weiss
- 3Litigators of the Week: A Knockout Blow to Latest FCC Net Neutrality Rules After ‘Loper Bright’
- 4Litigator of the Week Runners-Up and Shout-Outs
- 5Norton Rose Sues South Africa Government Over Ethnicity Score System
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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