Beginning Next Week: InsideCounsel will become part of Corporate Counsel. Bringing these two industry-leading websites together will now give you comprehensive coverage of the full spectrum of issues affecting today's General Counsel at companies of all sizes. You will continue to receive expert analysis on key issues including corporate litigation, labor developments, tech initiatives and intellectual property, as well as Women, Influence & Power in Law (WIPL) professional development content. Plus we'll be serving all ALM legal publications from one interconnected platform, powered by, giving you easy access to additional relevant content from other InsideCounsel sister publications.

To prevent a disruption in service, you will be automatically redirected to the new site next week. Thank you for being a valued InsideCounsel reader!


Farmer infringed on Monsanto’s soybean patents, Supreme Court rules

Patent exhaustion did not protect Vernon Hugh Bowman, who must pay Monsanto $84,000

Elderly farmer Vernon Hugh Bowman planted the seed of infringement when he grew Monsanto’s genetically modified soybeans without paying for them, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled on Monday.

Bowman purchased the seeds from a grain elevator, and argued that because they came from the crops of farmers who had already purchased Monsanto’s seeds, the patent exhaustion doctrine applied and Monsanto no longer controlled them. Plus, he said, “I couldn’t imagine that they’d give a rat’s behind,” NPR reports.

Monsanto gave a lot of rats’ behinds though. It gave them all the way to the Supreme Court, which upheld the Federal Circuit’s decision that Bowman must pay $84,000 to the agricultural company.

"In the case at hand, Bowman planted Monsanto's patented soybeans solely to make and market replicas of them, thus depriving the company of the reward patent law provides for the sale of each article,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the high court’s decision. “Patent exhaustion provides no haven for that conduct.”

Jonathan Kagan, a partner at Irell & Manella who focuses on patent litigation calls the decision “a straightforward application of patent exhaustion to a new technology—self-replicating products.”

“Because of this doctrine, Monsanto is careful to only sell its seed to farmers who agree not to do exactly what Farmer Bowman was doing here—using harvest seed for later planting,” Kagan says. “By buying through a grain elevator, Farmer Bowman was trying to find a way around these restrictions. It was a clever strategy, but not a legally sound one.”


Read more about Monsanto on InsideCounsel:

IP: The Supreme Court revisits patent exhaustion in Bowman v. Monsanto

Supreme Court appears to side with Monsanto in seed patent case

Monsanto lawyer says company will sue only farmers who illegally use patented seed technology

Monsanto seed patent case headed to Supreme Court

Join the Conversation

Advertisement. Closing in 15 seconds.