By: Sharon Urias, Esq.
On Monday, in a case known as “David vs. Goliath,” the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously ruled that a 75-year-old farmer violated patent rights of Monsanto when he purchased and then planted a mix of seeds that included patented Roundup Ready soybean seeds. Monsanto has a policy to protect its investment in seed development, and this policy bans farmers from saving or reusing the seeds once the crop is grown, which means farmers have to buy new seeds every year.
Vernon Bowman of Indiana, who had lost his suit against Monsanto in the lower courts and then appealed it all the way to the Supreme Court, had argued that because he purchased the seeds legally from a local grain elevator, he could do whatever he wanted to with the seeds because they were not covered by Monsanto’s patents. However, the court disagreed with Mr. Bowman by unanimously ruling for Monsanto. “By planting and harvesting Monsanto’s patented seeds, Bowman made additional copies of Monsanto’s patented invention, and his conduct thus falls outside the protections of patent exhaustion,” the Supreme Court ruled. “Were this otherwise, Monsanto’s patent would provide scant benefit. After Monsanto sold its first seed, other seed companies could produce the patented seed to compete with Monsanto, and farmers would need to buy seed only once.”
Bowman, the court wrote, was free to purchase grain elevator soy beans to feed livestock, to eat, or resell, but not to plant in his own fields to harvest and re-harvest several times without paying Monsanto for its patented product. The majority of soy bean farmers in this county buy Monsanto patented soy beans because of their resistance to weed killers even though the beans cost three times as much as beans that are non-resistant.
The biotech giant has been under fire recently after Congress passed an agricultural spending bill which critics named the “Monsanto Protection Act”, as it provides legal immunity to biotech entities such as Monsanto, companies that experiment both with genetically modified (GMO) and engineered food. Critics question the Supreme Court’s relationship with Monsanto because Justice Clarence Thomas was once a lawyer for the company.
Bowman’s and Monsanto’s patent violation case has been closely watched by both researchers and other businesses holding patents on nanotechnologies, self-replicating technologies, and DNA molecules. However, Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the court, emphasized the court’s decision was narrow. “Our holding today is limited – addressing the situation before us, rather than every one involving a self-replicating product.”
