U.S. Government Requests Argument Time in Bowman v. Monsanto -- at Monsanto's Expense

Department of Justice (DOJ) SealIn a paper filed earlier this week by Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, Jr., the U.S. government has asked the Supreme Court for leave to present ten minutes of  argument in Bowman v. Monsanto.  The request is not unusual or controversial -- but the apportionment of argument time requested by the SG is.

In the paper, the Solicitor asks the Court to alot its ten minutes from Monsanto's argument time, reducing that time from 30 to 20 minutes.  The rationale for this request is that the government "mostly" agrees with Monsanto's position that the Court should affirm the Federal Circuit's decision in Monsanto's favor.  However, the government identifies Bowman's position that the Federal Circuit's "conditioned sales" doctrine in its Malinckrodt line of cases as an area in which it agrees with Farmer Bowman -- i.e., that these decisions are inconsistent with the Court's decision in Quanta Computer v. LG Electronics and asks to be able to presents its argument on this issue to the Court.  This basis for the request is a little paradoxical, seeing that the government agrees with Monsanto that the Federal Circuit's opinion below did not rely on the conditioned sales doctrine and thus that the doctrine and the Malinckrodt cases are not at issue before the Court in this case.

MonsantoMonsanto has no objection to the government presenting its arguments, but has not consented to the SG's request, believing a 25-25-10 minute split is more equitable.  But Farmer Bowman is unwilling to give the government any of his time, and hence the current petition to the Court.  Alternatively, the SG asks the Court to grant it ten minutes of argument in addition to the thirty minutes for each party.

The government appears to want to eat its cake and have it, too, but perhaps believing the Court's grant of certiorari in the face of the SG's recommendation to the contrary has suggested to Mr. Verrilli and his staff the Court might benefit from being able to question the government directly on the issue.  Monsanto may have to take whatever solace it can find in the fact that the SG's voice will join with theirs in arguing in favor of affirmance.


Written by:

Published In:

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, using LinkedIn ›

* With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name.