In 2006, after he had received contact from Monsanto, he gave the corporation the authority to observe his crops for any breaches in the initial contract (“Bowman v. Monsanto,” n.d). Results did come back positive that the original Hi-Bred material was still evident in his crops. Leading to the initial Bowman vs. Monsanto court case, Monsanto declared to sue Bowman for reuse of their seeds. The case was brought up and granted to the Lower Court in October of 2012. Bowman went on and pursued the opposite declaring that the case should enact on patent exhaustion for the defending side of patent infringement. He fought this because he had believed that he was simply using seeds as farmers use seeds, and nothing more, “and thus allowing Monsanto …show more content…
In refining Bowman’s argument that he was using the seed he purchased in the manner it was intended to be used, and that therefore exhaustion should apply, the Supreme Court explained that its ruling would not prevent farmers from making appropriate use of the seed they purchase to grow a crop of soybeans consistent with the license to do so granted by …show more content…
Ag. Supply, Inc. vs Pioneer Hi-Bred Int’l, Inc case., in which the Supreme Court concluded that seeds and plants may simultaneously be subject to patent protection and to the narrower protection available under the Plant Variety Protection Act (PVPA). PVPA protection permits farmers who legally purchase protected seed to save harvested seed for replanting. Reconciling the two forms of protection, Justice Kagan explained, “If a sale of a patented seed cut off the right to control a patented seed’s progeny, then (contrary to J.E.M.Ag. Supply, Inc.) the patentee could not prevent the buyer from saving harvested seed.” The Supreme Court’s decision in Monsanto is, of course, important for agricultural industries. If subsequent cases extend the “no exhaustion” holding of Monsanto to these technologies, patent protection would extend to copies made from the first generation product that is obtained through an authorized sale. The Supreme Court suggested that it’s “no exhaustion” ruling might not apply where an article’s self-replication “occurs outside the purchaser’s control” or is “a necessary but careful step in using the item for another