Bowman v. Monsanto Co.

rdf:langString Bowman v. Monsanto Co.

rdf:langString

rdf:langString Vernon Hugh Bowman v. Monsanto Company, et al.

rdf:langString Rehearing denied, .

rdf:langString unanimous

rdf:langString Feb. 19

rdf:langString Bowman v. Monsanto Co., 569 U.S. 278

rdf:langString Mar. 19

rdf:langString Vernon Hugh Bowman v. Monsanto Company, et al.

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

rdf:langString Bowman v. Monsanto Co.

rdf:langString Kagan

rdf:langString Supreme Court

rdf:langString Bowman v. Monsanto Co., 569 U.S. 278 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court patent decision in which the Court unanimously affirmed the decision of the Federal Circuit that the patent exhaustion doctrine does not permit a farmer to plant and grow saved, patented seeds without the patent owner's permission. The case arose after Vernon Hugh Bowman, an Indiana farmer, bought transgenic soybean crop seeds from a local grain elevator for his second crop of the season. Monsanto originally sold the seed from which these soybeans were grown to farmers under a limited use license that prohibited the farmer-buyer from using the seeds for more than a single season or from saving any seed produced from the crop for replanting. The farmers sold their soybean crops (also seeds) to the local grain elevator, from which Bowman then bought them. After Bowman replanted the crop seeds for his second harvest, Monsanto filed a lawsuit claiming that he infringed on their patents by replanting soybeans without a license. In response, Bowman argued that Monsanto's claims were barred under the doctrine of patent exhaustion, because all future generations of soybeans were embodied in the first generation that was originally sold. In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Elena Kagan, the Supreme Court ruled that Bowman's conduct infringed Monsanto's patents and that the doctrine of patent exhaustion does not permit a farmer to reproduce patented seeds by planting and harvesting saved crop seeds without the patent holder's permission. The Court held that, when a farmer plants a harvested and saved seed, thereby growing another soybean crop, that action constitutes an unauthorized "making" of the patented product. The case garnered attention in part due to its potential impact on policy about genetically modified crops and self-replicating technologies, and due to the involvement of Justice Clarence Thomas, who previously served as a lawyer for Monsanto. Commentators noted, however, that the Court's ruling was narrow in scope, and did not set a broad legal precedent with respect to the applicability of the doctrine of patent exhaustion to self-replicating technologies.