ILNews

SCOTUS rules against Indiana farmer in seed patent case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A unanimous Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that patent exhaustion doesn’t allow a farmer to reproduce patented seeds through planting and harvesting without the patent holder’s permission.

The justices handed down the ruling Monday morning in Bowman v. Monsanto Co., et al., 11-796, in which Monsanto Co. sued Indiana farmer Vernon Hugh Bowman for patent infringement. Bowman purchased Monsanto’s patented Roundup Ready soybeans from an authorized dealer for his first crop of the season. Those seeds have been genetically altered to survive exposure to the herbicide glyphosate.

But in an effort to reduce planting costs, Bowman purchased soybeans intended for consumption from a grain elevator and planted them later in the season. He harvested some of the soybeans that contained the Roundup Ready trait to use again for late-season planting in the next season.

The purchase agreement of Roundup Ready soybeans permits a grower to plant those seeds in only one season, and a grower may not save them for replanting or supply them to anyone else for that purpose.

The District Court in the Southern District of Indiana ruled in favor of Monsanto, which the Federal Circuit affirmed, awarding nearly $85,000 in damages to Monsanto.

Bowman argued that exhaustion shouldn’t apply in this case because he is using seeds in the normal way farmers do. Allowing Monsanto to interfere with that use would create an impermissible exception to the exhaustion doctrine for patented seeds.

“Our holding today is limited — addressing the situation before us, rather than every one involving a self-replicating product. We recognize that such inventions are becoming ever more prevalent, complex, and diverse,” Associate Justice Elena Kagan wrote, noting it was Bowman, and not the bean, who controlled the reproduction of Monsanto’s patented invention. “In another case, the article’s self-replication might occur outside the purchaser’s control. Or it might be a necessary but incidental step in using the item for another purpose. We need not address here whether or how the doctrine of patent exhaustion would apply in such circumstances.

“In the case at hand, Bowman planted Monsanto’s patented soybeans solely to make and market replicas of them, thus depriving the company of the reward patent law provides for the sale of each article. Patent exhaustion provides no haven for that conduct,” the court held.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT