Monsanto Corporation is the manufacturer of RoundUp pesticides, which function by inhibiting the function of the enzyme EPSP synthase, which is necessary for a step in the synthesis of amino acids by the plant. The company also distributes seeds that are resistant to its pesticides though the insertion of a patented chimeric gene sequence that enables the plants to grow in the presence of the pesticide.
Monsanto v. David dealt with infringement of the gene patent due to David's practice of saving seeds from previous harvests, in violation of their mutual agreement. On appeal from a judgment for Monsanto, David argued that, as the Monsanto patent claims a gene sequence and not a seed or plant variety, it is limited to the gene sequence and not to the seed containing the gene. The CAFC disagreed with such a limitation on the utility patent, stating that if a seed contains the patented gene, planting that seed is an infringing act. The court also reiterated its decision in Monsanto v. McFarling, 302 F.3d 1291, that while the Plant Variety Protection Act permits farmers to save seeds of registered plants, such an exemption does not apply to a seed under a utility patent.
Leave a comment