Misplaced Pages

Bowman v. Monsanto Co.: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 02:14, 15 May 2013 editJytdog (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers187,951 edits consolidated duplicated information← Previous edit Revision as of 02:30, 15 May 2013 edit undoChrisGualtieri (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers457,369 editsm →Background: fixNext edit →
Line 29: Line 29:
==Background== ==Background==


In 2007, Monsanto sued Indiana farmer Vernon Hugh Bowman,<ref name="Bowman CAFC decision">United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. MONSANTO COMPANY AND MONSANTO TECHNOLOGY LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. VERNON HUGH BOWMAN, Defendant-Appellant. Docket 2010-1068. Decided: September 21, 2011 </ref> who in 1999 bought seed for his second planting from a grain elevator – the same elevator that he and neighboring farmers sold their crops to, many of which were transgenic.<ref name=NYT /> The elevator sold the soybeans as commodities, not as seeds for planting.<ref name="Bowman CAFC decision" /><ref name=PatentDocsBowman>{{cite web|url=http://www.patentdocs.org/2011/09/monsanto-co-v-bowman-fed-cir-2011.html |title=Monsanto Co. v. Bowman (Fed. Cir. 2011) |publisher=Patent Docs |date=September 22, 2011}}</ref>)Believing that a loophole existed under patent exhaustion, purchased mixed seeds from a grain elevator and planted them.<ref name=NYT />. He tested the new seeds, and found that as he had expected, some were resistant to glyphosate.<ref name=NYT /> He replanted seeds from the original second harvest in subsequent years for his second seasonal planting, supplementing them with more soybeans he bought at the elevator.<ref name="Bowman CAFC decision" /> He informed Monsanto of his activities.<ref name="Bowman CAFC decision" /><ref name=NYT /> Monsanto stated that he was infringing their patents because the soybeans he bought from the elevator were new products that he purchased for use as seeds without a license from Monsanto; Bowman stated that he had not infringed due to ] on the first sale of seed to whatever farmers had produced the crops that he bought from the elevator, on the grounds that for seed, all future generations are embodied in the first generation that was originally sold.<ref name=PatentDocsBowman /> In 2007, Monsanto sued Indiana farmer Vernon Hugh Bowman,<ref name="Bowman CAFC decision">United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. MONSANTO COMPANY AND MONSANTO TECHNOLOGY LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. VERNON HUGH BOWMAN, Defendant-Appellant. Docket 2010-1068. Decided: September 21, 2011 </ref> who in 1999 bought seed for his second planting from a grain elevator – the same elevator that he and neighboring farmers sold their crops to, many of which were transgenic.<ref name=NYT /> The elevator sold the soybeans as commodities, not as seeds for planting.<ref name="Bowman CAFC decision" /><ref name=PatentDocsBowman>{{cite web|url=http://www.patentdocs.org/2011/09/monsanto-co-v-bowman-fed-cir-2011.html |title=Monsanto Co. v. Bowman (Fed. Cir. 2011) |publisher=Patent Docs |date=September 22, 2011}}</ref> Believing that a loophole existed under patent exhaustion, purchased mixed seeds from a grain elevator and planted them.<ref name=NYT />. He tested the new seeds, and found that as he had expected, some were resistant to glyphosate.<ref name=NYT /> He replanted seeds from the original second harvest in subsequent years for his second seasonal planting, supplementing them with more soybeans he bought at the elevator.<ref name="Bowman CAFC decision" /> He informed Monsanto of his activities.<ref name="Bowman CAFC decision" /><ref name=NYT /> Monsanto stated that he was infringing their patents because the soybeans he bought from the elevator were new products that he purchased for use as seeds without a license from Monsanto; Bowman stated that he had not infringed due to ] on the first sale of seed to whatever farmers had produced the crops that he bought from the elevator, on the grounds that for seed, all future generations are embodied in the first generation that was originally sold.<ref name=PatentDocsBowman />


In 2009, the district court ruled in favor of Monsanto; on appeal, the Federal Circuit upheld the verdict.<ref name="Bowman CAFC decision" /> Bowman appealed to the ], which granted review,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/10/court-grants-7-new-cases/ |title=Court grants seven new cases (UPDATED) |publisher=SCOTUSblog |date=October 5, 2012}}</ref> then unanimously affirmed the Federal Circuit on May 13, 2013.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/14/business/monsanto-victorious-in-genetic-seed-case.html |title=Monsanto Wins Case on Genetically Altered Soybeans |author=Adam Liptak | publisher=''New York Times'' |date=May 13, 2013}}</ref><ref>''Bowman v. Monsanto Co. et al.'', No. 11–796, (S.Ct. May 13, 2013).</ref> In 2009, the district court ruled in favor of Monsanto; on appeal, the Federal Circuit upheld the verdict.<ref name="Bowman CAFC decision" /> Bowman appealed to the ], which granted review,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/10/court-grants-7-new-cases/ |title=Court grants seven new cases (UPDATED) |publisher=SCOTUSblog |date=October 5, 2012}}</ref> then unanimously affirmed the Federal Circuit on May 13, 2013.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/14/business/monsanto-victorious-in-genetic-seed-case.html |title=Monsanto Wins Case on Genetically Altered Soybeans |author=Adam Liptak | publisher=''New York Times'' |date=May 13, 2013}}</ref><ref>''Bowman v. Monsanto Co. et al.'', No. 11–796, (S.Ct. May 13, 2013).</ref>

Revision as of 02:30, 15 May 2013

2013 United States Supreme Court case
Bowman v. Monsanto Co.
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided March 19, 2013
Full case nameVernon Hugh Bowman, Petitioner v. Monsanto Company, et al.
Docket no.11-796
Holding
Patent exhaustion does not permit a farmer to reproduce patented seeds through planting and harvesting without the patent holder's permission.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy
Clarence Thomas · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor · Elena Kagan

Bowman v. Monsanto Co. is a United States Supreme Court patent decision in which the Court held, 9-0, in favor of the Monsanto Co. The ruling affirmed that patent exhaustion does not permit a farmer to reproduce patented seeds through planting and harvesting without the patent holder's permission. The case garnered an unusual amount of attention in part of its potential impact on genetic and self-replicating technologies and political concerns over the passage of a bill drafted in part by Monsanto and Justice Clarence Thomas, who previously served as a lawyer for Monsanto. The narrow scope of the ruling made the impact of the case very small, and specifically avoided the setting a broad legal precedent.

Background

In 2007, Monsanto sued Indiana farmer Vernon Hugh Bowman, who in 1999 bought seed for his second planting from a grain elevator – the same elevator that he and neighboring farmers sold their crops to, many of which were transgenic. The elevator sold the soybeans as commodities, not as seeds for planting. Believing that a loophole existed under patent exhaustion, purchased mixed seeds from a grain elevator and planted them.. He tested the new seeds, and found that as he had expected, some were resistant to glyphosate. He replanted seeds from the original second harvest in subsequent years for his second seasonal planting, supplementing them with more soybeans he bought at the elevator. He informed Monsanto of his activities. Monsanto stated that he was infringing their patents because the soybeans he bought from the elevator were new products that he purchased for use as seeds without a license from Monsanto; Bowman stated that he had not infringed due to patent exhaustion on the first sale of seed to whatever farmers had produced the crops that he bought from the elevator, on the grounds that for seed, all future generations are embodied in the first generation that was originally sold.

In 2009, the district court ruled in favor of Monsanto; on appeal, the Federal Circuit upheld the verdict. Bowman appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which granted review, then unanimously affirmed the Federal Circuit on May 13, 2013.

In the Supreme Court case, Seth P. Waxman, a lawyer arguing on behalf of Monsanto and a former United States solicitor general, argued, "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." First made in 1996, the Roundup Ready soybean is used in more than 90 percent of the 275,000 soybean farms in the United States.

Ruling

Patent exhaustion does not permit a farmer to reproduce patented seeds through planting and harvesting without the patent holder's permission.

Reaction

The case received an unusual amount of attention in the months leading up to the decision. Clarence Thomas, an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, had formerly served as a lawyer for the Monsanto. As the case was being heard, the Farmer Assurance Provision (also known as Monsanto Protection Act by critics) was signed into law by President Obama after garnering more then 250,000 signatures to oppose it. Another concern was how the doctrine of patent exhaustion for self-replicating technologies will be viewed by the court. Among the most interested parties included researchers and businesses that focus on DNA molecules, nanotechnologies and other self-replicating technologies, but the court's narrow ruling applies only to this specific case.

The decision was reported in nationally and internationally by various news sources including the Washington Post, USA Today, CNBC, Bloomberg, and Los Angeles Times. The UK Guardian and France24 were among the first international publications to run a story on the decision.

References

  1. ^ United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. MONSANTO COMPANY AND MONSANTO TECHNOLOGY LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. VERNON HUGH BOWMAN, Defendant-Appellant. Docket 2010-1068. Decided: September 21, 2011 Bowman Appeals Court Decision
  2. ^ "Supreme Court Appears to Defend Patent on Soybean". New York Times. Retrieved 2013-05-14.
  3. ^ "Monsanto Co. v. Bowman (Fed. Cir. 2011)". Patent Docs. September 22, 2011.
  4. "Court grants seven new cases (UPDATED)". SCOTUSblog. October 5, 2012.
  5. Adam Liptak (May 13, 2013). "Monsanto Wins Case on Genetically Altered Soybeans". New York Times. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  6. Bowman v. Monsanto Co. et al., No. 11–796, slip op. (S.Ct. May 13, 2013).
  7. "BOWMAN v . MONSANTO CO. ET AL . CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT No. 11–796. Argued February 19, 2013—Decided May 13, 2013" (PDF). United States Supreme Court. Retrieved 2013-05-13.
  8. "Monsanto wins landmark patent case in Supreme Court". RT. Retrieved 2013-05-14.
  9. "'Monsanto Protection Act' slips silently through US Congress". RT. Retrieved 2013-05-14.
  10. "Obama signs 'Monsanto Protection Act' written by Monsanto-sponsored senator". RT. Retrieved 2013-05-14.
  11. "Replication without Human Intervention: Lessons from Monsanto v. Bowman". The National Law Review. Retrieved 2013-05-14.
  12. "High court rules for Monsanto in soybean patent case Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/13/high-court-rules-for-monsanto-in-soybean-patent-case/#ixzz2TH5f3h94". Fox News. Retrieved 2013-05-14. {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)
  13. "Supreme Court rules for Monsanto, says farmer violated genetically modified soybeans' patent". Washington Post. Retrieved 2013-05-13.
  14. "Supreme Court sides with Monsanto in major patent case". USA Today. Retrieved 2013-05-13.
  15. "Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Monsanto in Patent Case". Retrieved 2013-05-13.
  16. . Bloomberg. Retrieved 2013-05-13. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help); External link in |title= (help)
  17. "Supreme Court rules in favor of Monsanto in seed-patenting case". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2013-05-13.
  18. "Supreme Court rules for Monsanto in Indiana farmer's GM seeds case". Guardian. Retrieved 2013-05-13.
  19. "US Supreme Court finds for Monsanto in seed patent battle". France24. Retrieved 2013-05-13.
Category: