Fill This Form To Receive Instant Help
Fill This Form To Receive Instant Help
Homework answers / question archive / Week 8 - Bowman v Monsanto Discussion - Week 8 Group 2 From AGRICULTURAL LAW (AEC_388_400_F2020) If you have signed up to do this case brief for homework, please start out the thread: Give us the key facts, issue, rule, holding, and even briefer reasoning from your brief to start the discussion
From AGRICULTURAL LAW (AEC_388_400_F2020)
If you have signed up to do this case brief for homework, please start out the thread: Give us the key facts, issue, rule, holding, and even briefer reasoning from your brief to start the discussion.
DO NOT simply copy or attach your brief. Condense the brief into its essentials to teach your classmates.
If another classmate has already posted, feel free to respond with alternative understanding of the case and try to work it out. That’s the BEST learning! I will chime in with clarification if necessary.
The Plaintiff in this case is Monsanto, and the Defendant is Bowman. Here we see a case having to do with patent law.
Monsanto invented and patented a genetically modified soybean plant that will survive exposure to glyphosate, which is contained in many herbicides. Monsanto sells the modified soybean seeds to growers that "assent to a special licensing agreement", which allows them to plant the purchased seeds in only one season and allowing them to sell or consume the crops as a commodity. But the growers are in no way allowed to keep seeds from harvest and use them for replanting. They must purchase more seeds directly from Monsanto the next growing season.
Bowman purchased the Roundup Ready soybean seeds from Monsanto for his first growing season. Although following harvest, Bowman purchased 'commodity soybeans' intended for consumption, and planted them in his farm knowing that farmers in his area also used Roundup Ready soybean seeds. After harvesting Bowman saved seeds from those crops and continued to reuse these seeds for eight consecutive crops.
When Monsanto discovered Bowmans practice he sued him for infringing its patents. Bowman argues for patent exhaustion, in which the buyer has a right to use or resell that article. But the district court denied his argument and granted Monsanto $84,456.
The main issue in this case, is whether or not patent exhaustion holds in this case, and if Monsanto could not control Bowmans use of the soybeans. But the flaw in Bowman's argument is that the exhaustion doctrine does not allow the buyer to 'make' a new product. It only allows the purchaser to use or sell the item as they see fit. Bowman replants the soybeans, and in doing so is 'making' more Roundup Ready soybean seeds, and so the exhaustion doctrine does not hold.
