Monsanto and DuPont seed trial begins
Monsanto Co. and DuPont kicked off the latest round of their long fight over genetically modified seed technology in a St. Louis courtroom Tuesday.
July 11, 2012 at 09:06 AM
2 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Monsanto Co. and DuPont kicked off the latest round of their long fight over genetically modified seed technology in a St. Louis courtroom Tuesday.
The suit dates back to 2009, when Monsanto sued DuPont for allegedly infringing patents on its herbicide-tolerant Roundup Ready crops. The agriculture giant says DuPont added Monsanto's patented seed technology to its own crops, violating a 2002 licensing agreement between the two companies.
Meanwhile, DuPont accuses Monsanto of obtaining the Roundup Ready soybean patent through fraudulent means. “We will … demonstrate that Monsanto sought to enforce the RE 39,247 patent against farmers and against DuPont even though Monsanto and its lawyers knew the patent was invalid,” DuPont attorney Thomas Sager told Reuters.
In 2010, the U.S. District Court in St. Louis ruled that the licensing agreements in question include an “implied” term preventing DuPont from combining Monsanto's herbicide-tolerant genes with its own Optimum GAT soybean seeds. The court added, however, that DuPont's antitrust and patent fraud claims against Monsanto could proceed.
This trial is slated to last for three weeks, but it appears the companies' legal tussles will continue indefinitely. In a separate suit last month, Monsanto sued the chemical company for infringing patents on Monsanto's “seed chipper” technology. And DuPont filed its own lawsuit in 2011, claiming that Monsanto had infringed its patents for “enhancing the vigor of maize seed.”
Read more coverage at Reuters.
For more InsideCounsel coverage of Monsanto, read:
This content has been archived.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
© 2024 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 All
Lululemon Faces Legal Fire Over Its DEI Program After Bias Complaints Surface
3 minute read
Old Laws, New Tricks: Lawyers Using Patchwork of Creative Legal Theories to Target New Tech
Lawsuit Against Amazon Could Reshape E-Commerce Landscape
Trending Stories
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
