Monsanto vs. Farmer Vernon Bowman| Judgment of Court on “RoundUp” herbicide

Page No. 1
info@techcorplegal.com
http://research.techcorplegal.com
Monsanto vs. Farmer Vernon
Bowman
Judgment of Court on
“RoundUp” herbicide

Authors
Rahul Dev is a Patent Attorney, Technology &
Business blogger, and partner of
Tech Corp Legal LLP, an International Law Firm.
Read more..
Prity Khastgir is a Patent Attorney, specializing
in Biotech, Food Technology & Pharmaceuticals,
and partner of Tech Corp Legal LLP, an
International Law Firm. Read more..
Page No. 2

Page No. 3
Table of Contents
Introduction to the Case ………………………………………………………… 4
Patent Exhaustion ……………………………………………………………….. 6
The Plant Variety Protection Act, 1970 ………………………………………… 7
Bowman’s First Argument ……………………………………………………….. 9
Result ……………………………………………………………………………… 11
Bowman’s Second Argument …………………………………………………… 12
Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………… 14
Contact Us ………………………………………………………………………… 15

Page No.4
Introduction
• A patented soybean seed is produced and sold by Monsanto that is genetically
altered to resist its “RoundUp” herbicide.
• Farmer Vernon Bowman purchased soybean for planting from a grain elevator.
• Bowman argued that Monsanto's sale of its seed that he had purchased from the grain
elevator exhausted any patent rights in the seed.
• The District Court and the Federal Circuit both had rejected the argument but later
Supreme Court agreed to review the case.

Page No.5
Monsanto
Farmer purchased the seeds from
grain elevator, thinking that he had
exhausted Monsanto’s patent rights
in the seed

Page No. 6
Patent Exhaustion?
There is a key difference between what people think
Patent Exhaustion is and what it actually is ?
 Patent Exhaustion is first
unrestricted sale by a patent
owner of a patented product
exhausts the patent owner’s
control over that particular
item.
 Patent exhaustion does
not permit farmers to
grow a new crop of
patented crops from those
seeds without the owner’s
permission.

Page No. 7
The Plant Variety
Protection Act, 1970
 This PVP Act gives plant breeders up to 25 years of exclusive right over new,
distinct, uniform, and stable sexually reproduced or tuber propagated plant and seed
varieties.
 The farmers generally get confused between PVPA and plant patents which only
include asexually reproduced plants and not including tuber propagated plants.

Page No. 8
Is it necessary for the farmers
to get permission before
Planting the seeds ?

Page No. 9
Bowman’s First Argument
 Bowman demanded that the usage of seeds is covered by the patent
exhaustion doctrine because that is the normal way farmers use seed
and Monsanto needn’t seek an impermissible exception to the
exhaustion doctrine for patented seeds and other self-replicating
technologies.
 The argument was rejected by the Court explaining that Bowman
should seek an exceptional exemption to an already settled rule that the
exhaustion doctrine does not allow the right to make a new product.

Page No. 10
 This is the reason patent exhaustion
has its boundaries of deciding the failure
to exclude those activities where the
patentee can retain an undiminished right
to prohibit others from making anything
that is derived from his patent projects.

Page No. 11
Result
 When a farmer purchases Roundup Ready seed he intends to grow a
crop and he knows he will be able to plant it.
 However, Monsanto sets the state of affairs where farmer’s ability to
reproduce Roundup Ready seed is diminished and cannot realistically
prevent all plantings.
 So Monsanto sells the RoundUp Ready seed to farmers with a license to
use it to make a crop only and no further seeds will be generated.

Page No. 12
Bowman’s Second Argument
 Bowman’s another argument was also rejected by the Court as he
said the reproduction of seeds had occurred naturally and bowman
himself had not made imitation of Monsanto’s planted invention.
 On this the court commented that Bowman was not a fine observer
of his crops and that his seeds had not spontaneously created
successive soybean crops.

Page No. 13
Court further declared that Bowman had purchased the
beans and applied herbicide, then saved them for coming
season, then planted the beans, tended and treated them
properly, and harvested numerous seeds for marketing or saving
for the next cycle.
 This was not the point to be blamed on the seeds but only
Bowman who controlled the reproduction of Monsanto’s patented
invention

Page No. 14
Conclusion
The court noted that inventions like these are becoming
more prevalent, complex, and diverse, and that the article’s
self-replication in some other case can occur outside the
purchaser’s control or might be a necessary but incidental
step in using the item for another purpose.

Page No. 15
Thank you
Get in touch: info(at)techcorplegal(dot)com

Monsanto vs. Farmer Vernon Bowman| Judgment of Court on “RoundUp” herbicide

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from Prity Khastgir IPR Strategic India Patent Attorney Amplify Innovation

More from Prity Khastgir IPR Strategic India Patent Attorney Amplify Innovation (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Monsanto vs. Farmer Vernon Bowman| Judgment of Court on “RoundUp” herbicide