Bowman v. Monsanto: Self-Replicating Biotech and Software Left at the Alter?

by Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
Contact

Today, in a case having the potential to upset the agricultural biotech industry, Justice Elena Kagan delivered the U.S. Supreme Court’s unanimous decision rejecting farmer Vernon Hugh Bowman’s patent exhaustion defense. Bowman argued that having purchased genetically modified seeds covered by Monsanto patents from a grain elevator, he was free to plant them, grow them into plants that produced new seed, and harvest the new seed to sell or save for later replanting without the patent owner Monsanto’s permission. Bowman v. Monsanto, __ U.S. __, (No. 11-796) (May 13, 2013). Affirming the district court and Federal Circuit rulings, the Court held that the doctrine of patent exhaustion does not apply to protect a purchaser of a patented article to make new copies of the patented invention. In doing so, however, the Court limited its holding to the facts of the case, where the accused infringer controlled the reproduction of the patented invention that involved passing a genetic modification from the purchased seed to its progeny. The Court expressly left open whether patent exhaustion will apply to other self-replicating inventions—e.g., biological organisms and software, where patented articles that self-reproduce or self-replicate under other circumstances that are outside the purchaser’s control, or where that replication is a necessary but incidental step in using the item for another purpose. But for genetically modified plant seeds, the answer today is clearly and unambiguously no.

Case Background

Monsanto developed and obtained patents on a genetic modification that enables plants, in this case soybean, to survive exposure to glyphosate, the active ingredient in certain broad spectrum herbicides (including Monsanto’s own Roundup). Monsanto markets the genetically modified soybean seed directly and under license through other companies as Roundup Ready seed. Farmers who plant Roundup Ready seed can use a glyphosate-based herbicide to kill weeds without damaging their Roundup Ready soybean crops. These farmers do so under an agreement with Monsanto that allows them to plant the purchased seeds in one (and only one) season, and then consume the resulting crop or sell it as a commodity, usually to a grain elevator or agricultural processor (for resale for human or animal consumption). The farmers are not allowed under their license agreements to save any of the harvested soybeans for replanting, nor supply them to anyone else for that purpose.

Bowman bought licensed Roundup Ready soybean seed for a first planting every year, and would sell his entire soybean crop from this first planting to a grain elevator. As an industrious farmer, he also made a late season planting of a second soybean crop each year, but for this he purchased “commodity seed,” destined for human or animal consumption, from a grain elevator, reasoning that most of these soybean seeds would be Roundup Ready. This second crop, like the first one, was planted and treated with glyphosate and, as anticipated, most of the soybean plants survived. They yielded seed which he then harvested and sold to the grain elevator. He saved some portion of the second harvest every year, thereby reducing over time the amount of commodity seed he needed to purchase from a grain elevator for his late season second planting.

Monsanto discovered Bowman’s conduct and sued for patent infringement, arguing that Bowman was creating new seed to which he did not have a license. Bowman defended the infringement claim arguing that under the doctrine of patent exhaustion, Monsanto could not control his use of the soybeans because he was doing what farmers do with seeds, and they were the subject of a prior authorized sale (from local farmers to the grain elevator). The District Court rejected that argument, and awarded infringement damages to Monsanto of $84,456. The Federal Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari “to consider the important question of patent law raised in this case” (Slip. Op. at 4).

In reaching its decision, the Court articulated the doctrine of patent exhaustion as one that:

limits a patentee’s right to control what others can do with an article embodying or containing an invention. Under the doctrine, “the initial authorized sale of a patented item terminates all patent rights to that item.” Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 553 U. S. 617, 625 (2008). And by “exhaust[ing] the [patentee’s] monopoly” in that item, the sale confers on the purchaser, or any subsequent owner, “the right to use [or] sell” the thing as he sees fit. United States v. Univis Lens Co., 316 U. S. 241, 249–250 (1942). We have explained the basis for the doctrine as follows: “[T]he purpose of the patent law is fulfilled with respect to any particular article when the patentee has received his reward ... by the sale of the article”; once that “purpose is realized the patent law affords no basis for restraining the use and enjoyment of the thing sold.” Id., at 251.

The Court drew a clear line between what Bowman could do under the patent exhaustion doctrine, which was to resell the patented soybeans he purchased from the grain elevator, consume the beans himself or feed them to his animals, and what he could not do, which was to make additional patented soybeans without Monsanto’s permission (either express or implied). The Court reasoned that Monsanto could not interfere with the former activity, having already received its “reward” for the actual article sold under license to Bowman. But the latter—keeping a share of his first season’s crop for the purpose of another planting of the genetically-modified soybeans—was not a protected use. The Court recognized that if exhaustion applied to the second generation seed, “Monsanto’s patent would provide scant benefit” because “in short order, other seed companies could reproduce the product and market it to growers, thus depriving Monsanto of its monopoly” thereby “profiting from the patented seed without compensating its inventor.” (Slip Op. at 6). As Justice Kagan stated: “The exhaustion doctrine is limited to the ‘particular item’ sold to avoid just such a mismatch between invention and reward” (slip op. at 7), and “if simple copying were a protected use, a patent would plummet in value after the first sale of the first item containing the invention” and the “undiluted patent monopoly” would not extend for the 20-year term advertised in the Patent Act (slip op. at 8).

The Court found its holding consistent with the dichotomy established between the Patent Act and the Plant Variety Protection Act (PVPA), as articulated in its earlier decision in J.E.M. Ag Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred Int’l, Inc., 534 U. S. 124 (2001). Justice Kagan noted these different, but not conflicting statutory schemes for plant protection in which the Patent Act has no exemption from infringement for saving seed for replanting, whereas the PVPA does.

The Court took note that Bowman was not merely a passive observer in the seed self-replication process—it took some effort on his part to cause the reproduction of the seed to use it for another season’s crop—and of his admission that he knew of no other farmer that did what he did. Rather, Bowman took an active role in causing the commodity soybean seed to self-replicate and produce additional seeds, and thereby controlled the reproduction. Leaving the door open on how patent exhaustion might apply to other facts, the Court has hinted that its view, or perhaps its unanimity, might turn on how self-replication of the patented article occurs, and to what extent it is beyond the purchaser’s control. Where that line may be drawn remains to be seen. Clearly, the Supreme Court has not exhausted what it has to say on the doctrine of patent exhaustion.

The high level of interest and importance of this case is reflected in the 23 amicus briefs filed, including one authored by Orrick's Robert Isackson and other members of the New York Intellectual Property Law Association Amicus Briefs Committee. For full text of the NYIPLA brief please click here.

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.

© Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
Contact
more
less

Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*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. Or, sign up using your email address.