| Revision as of 01:19, 14 May 2013 editChrisGualtieri (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers457,369 edits working...← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:40, 14 May 2013 edit undoChrisGualtieri (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers457,369 edits Ruling (edited with ProveIt)Next edit → | ||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| '''Bowman v. Monsanto Co.''' is a ] decision in which the Court held, 9-0, in favor of the Monsanto Co. | '''Bowman v. Monsanto Co.''' is a ] ] decision in which the Court held, 9-0, in favor of the Monsanto Co. The ruling was very narrow and applied to patent exhaustion on a farmer to reproduce patented seeds through planting and harvesting without the patent holder's permission. | ||
| ==Background== | ==Background== | ||
| Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
| 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> | 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> | ||
| ==Ruling== | |||
| <blockquote>Patent exhaustion does not permit a farmer to reproduce patented seeds through planting and harvesting without the patent holder's permission.<ref name="ruling">{{cite web | url=http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-796_c07d.pdf | title=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 | publisher=United States Supreme Court | accessdate=2013-05-13}}</ref></blockquote> | |||
| ==References== | ==References== | ||
Revision as of 01:40, 14 May 2013
2013 United States Supreme Court case| Bowman v. Monsanto Co. | |
|---|---|
 Supreme Court of the United States | |
| Decided March 19, 2013 | |
| Full case name | Vernon Hugh Bowman, Petitioner v. Monsanto Company, et al. |
| Docket no. | 11-796 |
| Court membership | |
| |
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 was very narrow and applied to patent exhaustion on a farmer to reproduce patented seeds through planting and harvesting without the patent holder's permission.
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 others sold their transgenic crops to. The elevator sold the soybeans as commodities, not as seeds for planting.). He tested the new seeds, and found that as he had expected, some were resistant to glyphosate. He replanted his 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.
Case
Bowman appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which granted review,, then unanimously affirmed the Federal Circuit on May 13, 2013.
Ruling
Patent exhaustion does not permit a farmer to reproduce patented seeds through planting and harvesting without the patent holder's permission.
References
- ^ 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
- ^ "Monsanto Co. v. Bowman (Fed. Cir. 2011)". Patent Docs. September 22, 2011.
- "Court grants seven new cases (UPDATED)". SCOTUSblog. October 5, 2012.
- 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) - Bowman v. Monsanto Co. et al., No. 11–796, slip op. (S.Ct. May 13, 2013).
- "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.