SPECIAL FEATURES:
Email
Monsanto wins lawsuit against Indiana soybean farmer
Monsanto claimed intellectual property infringement when a farmer used the company's patented seeds from a commodity seed bag.
Wed, Sep 21 2011 at 5:53 PM
Related Topics:
Photo: jessicareeder/Flickr
Monsanto Co., the world's largest seed company, has prevailed in another lawsuit against a U.S. farmer, earning a ruling from a federal appeals court that protects Monsanto's interests even when its patented seeds are sold in a mix of undifferentiated "commodity" seeds.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington issued its ruling Wednesday, affirming the lower court decision that favored Monsanto.
The St. Louis, Mo.-based company sued Indiana soybean farmer Vernon Bowman in 2007, accusing Bowman of patent infringement for planting and saving seeds that contained Monsanto's genetically altered Roundup Ready technology even though Bowman said he bought those seeds as part of a mix of commodity seeds.
Commodity seeds come from farms that use Roundup Ready technology as well as those that do not without differentiation. No licensing agreements are required with the sale of such seeds.
Monsanto restricts grower use of its licensed Roundup Ready seed to a single commercial crop season. Roundup Ready seeds tolerate spray treatments of Monsanto's Roundup herbicide.
The court found that while the technology agreements Monsanto requires growers to adhere to forbids farmers from selling the progeny of Roundup Ready seeds, those agreements do not extend to second-generation seed.
In fact, Monsanto authorizes the growers to sell their second-generation seed to grain elevators as a commodity and does not require restrictions on grain elevators' subsequent sales of that seed, the court said.
But that still does not give growers a green light to replicate Monsanto's patented technology by planting it in the ground to create "newly infringing genetic material, seeds and plants," the court found.
"The attempt to limit the applicability of patent rights was again squarely rejected by the court," Monsanto said in a statement.
In Bowman's case, he planted Roundup Ready seeds as his first-crop in each growing season from 1999-2007 and did not save seed in compliance with licensing agreements. But he also purchased commodity seed from a local grain elevator for a late-season planting, or what is known as a "second-crop."
The farmer applied glyphosate to his second soybean crops and was able to identify herbicide-resistant plants, from which he then saved seed for subsequent years of second-crop planting, according to the court documents.
Bowman argued that Monsanto's patent rights were exhausted with respect to Roundup Ready soybean seeds that are present in grain elevators as undifferentiated commodity seed.
But the court still found that infringement of Monsanto's patent occurred and affirmed the award of damages to Monsanto, which a lower court set $84,456.
Mark Walters, a lawyer for Bowman, said he was disappointed in the court decision, which he said conflicts with "over a century of Supreme Court law on patent exhaustion." Bowman may make a further appeal, he said.
(Reporting by Carey Gillam; Editing by Bob Burgdorfer)
Copyright 2011 Reuters Environmental Online Report
You might also like:
Sign in with one of these accounts to add your comment.
EDITORS' PICKS
Advertisement
TODAY'S MOST POPULAR ON
- 15 famous people who mysteriously disappeared
- 5 of the best-looking cars ever
- Superfoods: 11 berries to improve your health
- Why we turn to dogs when disaster strikes
- 10 false facts most people think are true
- 9 habits that may do more harm than good
- Rebounding from adversity: 7 cities that have survived tragedy
- Bride finds self-esteem by taking a diet from her mirror
- Kidnapped women will have chance to adopt Ariel Castro's dogs
- 13 natural remedies for the ant invasion
NEWSLETTER
Advertisement
This ruling is astounding!! As the very similar issue of '2nd use' copyright and patent protection was recently decided by the US Supreme Court ruling that such protection only applied to initial sale. The case involved deliberate purchase of new & used college text books in SE Asia for re-sale in the US for less than the US price-fixed price.
And Monsanto has the BALLS to run ads celebrating farmers, while doing their damndest to sue every one of them out of business and steal their farms.
Please god help us. It is clearly us against them. He obviously had no chance in MM court. Revolution! Godspeed to my fellow citizens. (of the world)
monsanto is cost small farmer a lot of monet in court costs and destoying nongmo crops stephen webster blyth canada 2262221429
Welcome to police state America!
The judges are in the pockets of Monsanto
so there was not chance of winning.
The case also seems to suggest that farmers will no longer be able to save second generation seeds from grain elevators if (as stated in this case) 90% of the seeds in the grain elevators are from GMO sources. So, whether they want to buy GMO seeds or not, they'll have to buy seeds from the GMO producer or a grain elevator - saving seeds is no longer permitted...
Help change the law so that genetically modified foods are required to be label. Sign this petition.
https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/require-all-genetically...
October 16 is World Food Day and Millions Against Monsanto is coming to a city near you. Join a rally and tell the world how we feel about genetically engineered crops . NO TO GMO! Monsanto , Bayer and Scotts are evil. They are selling genetically engineered grass seed without the knowledge or consent of the consumer.
While I absolutely hate what Monsanto is doing, the farmer was just as evil as any farmer who is intentionally growing GM crops. In this case, the farmer was getting his seeds without paying Monsanto by using Roundup to kill off the non-GMO plants so he would be saving the seeds only from his GMO plants. This is really a different thing.
Did you read the article? The farmer is absolutely blameless! Or do you work for Monsanto??
I agree. The Guy did not create anything, so what patent did he violate.
This is just another All American Police State Tactic.
Maybe if monsanto and their gmo farmers keep suing each other they will put themselves out of business. Never thought monanto would sue one of their own. Are they that greedy or are they hiding something
I watched a documentary on Monsanto recently that was infuriating. It's not right what they are doing to farmers. Its hard enough to make a living as a farmer without having to worry about Monsanto dropping in with lawsuits. I hope Monsanto gets what's coming to them before too many more farmers have to deal with their selfish endeavors.
No, "this farmer was" NOT. He bought bulk beans from a local elevator. Please re-read the article to get your facts straight.