The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P invented a genetic modification that enables soybean plants to survive exposure to glyphosate. Farmers planting that seed can use a glyphosate-based herbicide (Roundup) to kill weeds without damaging their crops. P sells, and allows other companies to sell, Roundup Ready soybean seeds to growers who assent to a special licensing agreement. That agreement permits a grower to plant the purchased seeds in one (and only one) season. He can then consume the resulting crop or sell it as a commodity, usually to a grain elevator or agricultural processor. The farmer may not save any of the harvested soybeans for replanting, nor may he supply them to anyone else for that purpose. The agreement forces a farmer to buy the seeds from Monsanto each season. D went to a grain elevator; purchased “commodity soybeans” intended for human or animal consumption; and planted them in his fields. Those soybeans came from prior harvests of other local farmers. And because most of those farmers also used Roundup Ready seed, D could anticipate that many of the purchased soybeans would contain P’s patented technology. D’s assumptions were correct. D saved seed from that crop to use in his late-season planting the next year-and then the next, and the next, until he had harvested eight crops in that way. P sued D for infringing its patents on Roundup Ready seed. D claimed patent exhaustion. The District Court rejected that argument and awarded damages to P of $84,456. The Supreme Court eventually granted certiorari.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.