In an unanimous decision the Supreme Court ruled in favor of agriculture giant Monsanto over an Indiana farmer. The court's ruling states that farmers cannot use Monsanto's patented genetically-altered soybeans in order to create new seeds unless they pay Monsanto for the use.
The case could have widespread implications for many industries beyond agriculture; businesses based on vaccines, software, and cell lines could be affected, according to The New York Times. Justice Elena Kagan wrote the short 10-page decision for the court and emphasized the ruling applied specifically for this one case and should not be seen as the court's opinion on all patent laws.
"Our holding today is limited - addressing the situation before us, rather than every one involving a self-replicating product," Kagan wrote. "We recognize that such inventions are becoming ever more prevalent, complex and diverse. In another case, the article's self-replication might occur outside the purchaser's control. Or it might be a necessary but incidental step in using the item for another purpose."
When purchasing seeds from Monsanto the client has to sign a contract agreeing to not save any seeds, therefore the client needs to buy new seeds from Monsanto every year.
The defendant in the case, Vernon Hugh Bowman, signed that contract for his first crop of the season. When he planted a second crop later on he purchased seeds from a grain elevator hoping that they had contained the Monsanto seeds, according to The New York Times.
Bowman sprayed his new crops with Roundup, also made by Monsanto and the Monsanto seeds are genetically altered in order to withstand spraying by Roundup, many of the new crops survived. Bowman would use these seeds in further plantings, according to USA Today. This is where Bowman violated the contract with Monsanto the court decided.
"If simple copying were a protected use, a patent would plummet in value after the first sale of the first item containing the invention," Kagan wrote. "The undiluted patent monopoly, it might be said, would extend not for 20 years as the Patent Act promises, but for only one transaction. And that would result in less incentive for innovation than Congress wanted."
Mark Patterson, a law professor at the Fordham University School of Law, says that the court will have to act again in the future to determine the patent implications on other self-reproducing inventions.
"Justice Kagan, in the last paragraph of the opinion, noted that 'such inventions are becoming ever more prevalent, complex and diverse,'" Patterson said. "Either the court or congress will have to address them again soon."
