Monsanto v Bowman: Supreme Court rejects “blame-the-bean” defence

The US Supreme Court has decided unanimously in favour of agricultural company Monsanto in its patent battle against Indiana farmer Vernon Bowman.

In a widely expected but nonetheless emphatic decision, the court found that Bowman had infringed Monsanto’s patents covering a genetically modified soybean – sold as Roundup Ready – when he replanted a crop of modified seeds in breach of his licensing agreement with Monsanto.

Bowman had argued that because the seeds for replanting were bought from a grain elevator following a “first-authorized sale” from farmers to the elevator, the patent rights had been exhausted.

Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the court, rejected that argument, finding that while “the authorized sale of a patented article gives the purchaser, or any subsequent owner, a right to use or resell that article … Such a sale, however, does not allow the purchaser to make new copies of the patented invention”.

The court explained: “Under the patent exhaustion doctrine, Bowman could resell the patented soybeans he purchased from the grain elevator; so too he could consume the beans himself or feed them to his animals. Monsanto, although the patent holder, would have no business interfering in those uses of Roundup Ready beans. But the exhaustion doctrine does not enable Bowman to make additional patented soybeans without Monsanto’s permission.”

The court pointed out that, were it to rule otherwise, Monsanto would derive “scant benefit” from its patents.

Bowman further argued that he could not be held liable because soybeans naturally sprout unless stored in a controlled manner, and therefore the beans themselves are responsible for their replication. The court described the “blame-the-bean defense” as “tough to credit”, because Bowman had actively “controlled the reproduction … of Monsanto’s patented invention”.

Jim Greenwood, president and chief executive of the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO), welcomed the ruling, saying it “not only answers an important question about patent infringement by planting patented genetically engineered seeds, but also confirms the legitimacy of long-established patent licensing practices in all areas of BIO’s membership.”

He added: “As such, the Supreme Court’s commitment to uphold valid intellectual property rights in this case creates business certainty that will benefit all of biotechnology – as well as the patients, farmers, and consumers who benefit from biotechnology’s help in healing, feeding, and fuelling the world.”

But Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of the Center for Food Safety, called the ruling “misguided”.

He said: “The court chose to protect Monsanto over farmers. The court’s ruling is contrary to logic and to agronomics, because it improperly attributes seeds’ reproduction to farmers, rather than nature.”

David Snively, Monsanto’s general counsel, said the ruling ensures that “longstanding principles of patent law apply to breakthrough 21st century technologies that are central to meeting the growing demands of our planet and its people”.

Bowman could not be reached for comment. According to a February report by the Center for Food Safety and Save Our Seeds, Monsanto has filed 144 lawsuits across 27 states alleging seed patent infringement.

For more life sciences stories, please visit www.lifesciencesipreview.com