us-supreme-court
14 January 2014Americas

US Supreme Court rejects Monsanto seed case

The US Supreme Court has refused to hear the Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association (OSGATA)’s case against Monsanto, along with two other patent cases as revealed in a document released on January 13.

OSGATA, an association formed of 73 American organic and conventional family farmers, seed businesses and public advocacy groups, sued Monsanto in March 2011 to challenge the agriculture company’s patents on genetically engineered seed.

It also sought assurance that Monsanto may not sue the association’s members for patent infringement if their crops are accidentally contaminated by the seed.

OSGATA urged the court to hear the case in a brief filed in December 2013.

The district and appeals courts had both ruled against OSGATA, pointing out that Monsanto had never sued any company for accidental pollination and had publicly committed not to do so.

However, according to OSGATA’s December brief, Monsanto has received settlements from “hundreds” of parties – 700 in total. In addition, Monsanto filed 144 infringement lawsuits between 1997 and 2010.

Monsanto said in a statement: “Monsanto never has and has committed it never will sue if our patented seed or traits are found in a farmer’s field as a result of inadvertent means.

“The lower courts agreed there was no controversy between the parties and the Supreme Court’s decision not to review the case brings closure on this matter.”

Lisa Stokke, OSGATA board member and founder of Food Democracy Now!, told LSIPR that it was a “tragic day”, though said OSGATA will not give up the cause.

“All we’re asking for in the US is for our case to be heard. Also letting people know today that legally today, Monsanto hasn’t won anything ... they don’t have criteria for a valid patent and we want the US courts to hear that,” she added.

“We are confident that we will win this because it is an injustice. We truly believe the truth will win out in the end.”

On the same day, the court turned away a case launched by Soverain Software LLC against online electronic retailer Newegg.

Soverain accused Newegg of infringing three of its ‘shopping cart’ patents that relate to a way products may be offered and bought online.

The US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas found Newegg had infringed two of the patents and awarded Soverain damages of $2.5 million.

Newegg later successfully appealed against the decision, and in January 2013 the Federal Circuit invalidated the three “shopping cart” patents, including a claim that was not asserted, on the grounds of obviousness.

Soverain urged the Supreme Court to hear to consider the issues of obviousness in the case, to which Newegg responded in a briefing: “[Soverain’s] argument that its patents describe non-obviousness advances by applying century-old shopping conventions to the internet is tone deaf.”

It added: “[Soverain’s] notorious ‘shopping cart’ patent merely applies the common sense concept of a shopping cart to the internet from similar ‘shopping cart’ concepts in the prior art.”

Reacting to the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear the case, Soverain’s president Katharine Wolanyk said: “We are obviously disappointed by the Supreme Court’s denial of our cert petition, and are troubled by the precedent it leaves in place.”

She added: “It is a tough time to be a patent owner.”

Newegg did not respond to a request for comment.

The Supreme Court also decided not to hear Helsinki-based mining equipment provider Metso’s case against heavy equipment supplier Terex Corporation, denying it a chance to receive the $31.6 million damages awarded by a lower court.

The case related to machines known as “screeners” that sort rocks and other materials by size.

Metso brought the case against Terex, then known as Powerscreen International, at the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York in 2006.

It argued that the screener built and sold by Terex infringed five claims of one of its patents. The district court found that Powerscreen had infringed the patent and doubled the initial damages award because of Powerscreen’s “willful infringement and ostrich-like behaviour”.

This decision was reversed by the Federal Circuit in 2013, which found the patent would have been obvious as a matter of law.

Metso and Terex did not respond to WIPR’s requests for comment.


More on this story

Biotechnology
11 March 2021   China must safeguard IP in the seed industry to ensure innovation within the sector, the group chairman of Chinese multinational Sinochem, Frank Ning, has warned.

More on this story

Biotechnology
11 March 2021   China must safeguard IP in the seed industry to ensure innovation within the sector, the group chairman of Chinese multinational Sinochem, Frank Ning, has warned.