The U.S. Supreme Court recently backed agriculture corporation Monsanto in an intellectual property case.

Supreme Court backs Monsanto in intellectual property case

May 15, 2013 10:45 am Published by Leave your thoughts

The U.S. Supreme Court just ruled in a major intellectual property case that has far-reaching implications for American agriculture.

In Bowman v. Monsanto, the court on Monday found that "patent exhaustion," which limits how much a patent-holder can control a product after sale, does not allow farmers to reproduce a plant without the permission of the seed's patent holder. 

The issue came about when agricultural corporation Monsanto sued Indiana farmer Vernon Hugh Bowman for planting, harvesting and re-planting the company's "Roundup Ready" seeds without paying a fee. The genetically-modified seeds are resistant to the popular herbicide Roundup, allowing farmers to reduce weeds and insects while planting them. However, seeds are more expensive than typical soybeans, and Monsanto requires customers to buy them every year rather than replant them.

According to a CNN report, Bowman argued that while he bought Monsanto's seeds for his first crop, he went to a grain elevator to buy the seeds for his second crop. Those mixed seeds happened to contain more of Monsanto's seeds, which Bowman planted and harvested, believing there was no restriction on doing so.

"Bowman planted Monsanto's patented soybeans solely to make and market replicas of them thus depriving the corporation of the reward patent law provides for the sale of each article," Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the decision.

The justices' unanimous vote upheld a district court ruling that awarded Monsanto $84,456 in damages.

Kagan added that the ruling may not apply to every similar case.

"Our holding today is limited—addressing the situation before us, rather than every one involving a self-replicating product," she wrote. "We recognize that such inventions are becoming ever more prevalent, complex, and diverse."

As technological development becomes more rapid, companies have an incentive to protect their intellectual property. Local businesses may benefit from consulting with a Phoenix small business attorney.

Related posts:

  1. Supreme Court will hear eight intellectual property cases
  2. Supreme Court will hear eight intellectual property cases
  3. California Supreme Court favors amusement park in bumper car injury case
  4. Tech industry patent case addressing ‘divided infringement’ to go before Supreme Court

Categorised in:

This post was written by