On October 5, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the issue of whether the Federal Circuit erred by (1) refusing to find patent exhaustion that eliminates the right to control or prohibit the use of an invention after an authorized sale in patented seeds sold for planting; and (2) creating an exception to the doctrine of patent exhaustion for self-replicating technologies. Bowman v. Monsanto Co., Docket No. 11-796 (Supreme Court 2012), proceedings below, Monsanto Co. v. Bowman, 657 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
At the Federal Circuit, the court had refused to limit patent rights after the first sale thus allowing the patent owner to control the use of the seeds made by the plants grown from the sold seeds. While the case is based on whether the sale of patented, genetically modified seeds to a farmer who then grows crops and seeds from the genetically modified seeds cuts off the patent rights of the seller, this case is important for those in the biotechnology industry that patent and sell self-replicating technologies such as genetically modified cells. The case also is important to regenerative medicine that relies on stem cell technologies. A stem cell, by definition is a cell that can self-replicate, while producing cell progeny that are identical to the parent cell or produce cells that will mature into more specialized organ-specific cell types. Thus, the U.S. Supreme Court may answer the question whether a patentee can control progeny of a patented stem cell.
This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney.
This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary.
The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites.
In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.