Patent Exhaustion and Self-Replicating Technologies

13 May 2013 Personalized Medicine Bulletin Blog

Today in Bowman v. Monstanto Co., 569 U.S. __ (2013), a unanimous Supreme Court held that under the doctrine of patent exhaustion,the authorized sale of a patented article only gives the purchaser or any subsequent owner of the patented article the right to use or resell that article. It does not give the purchaser or any subsequent owner the right to make copies of the original article, even when the article being purchased inherently possesses the ability to make copies of itself.
Self-Replicating Seeds

The particular facts of the case relate to self-replicating soybean seeds that are resistant to Roundup, a popular herbicide. Bowman, a soybean farmer, purchased patented soybean seeds from a company affiliated with Monsanto. Monsanto holds the patent on the herbicide-resistant seeds. When purchasing the original seeds, Bowman agreed to Monsanto’s restriction against the use of seeds created from the planting and harvesting of them.

The Doctrine of Patent Exhaustion Does Not Apply

After planting, harvesting and selling the resulting seeds from the original purchase, Bowman purchased second generation seeds from a party not authorized by Monsanto to sell the patented seeds. He planted the second generation seeds and sold the resultant soybeans for a profit. Monsanto sued Bowman for for the unauthorized use of the patented (second generation) seeds. Bowman raised as his defense the doctrine of patent exhaustion. 

The Supreme Court held that the defense of doctrine of patent exhaustion does not apply to the facts of this case. Under the doctrine, the initial authorized sale of a patented item terminates all patent rights to that item. However, consistent with that rationale, the Supreme Court noted that the doctrine restricts a patentee’s rights only as to the particular article sold; it leaves untouched the patentee’s ability to prevent a buyer from making new copies of the patented item. Slip Op. at 4-5. The exhaustion doctrine does not enable Bowman to make additional patented soybeans without Monsanto’s permission whether expressly or impliedly granted. Slip Op. at 5.

Limited Application of the Doctrine

While the holding of the case could be applied to self-replicating technologies such as stem cells, recombinant genes and monoclonal antibody-producing hybridoma cells, the Supreme Court was careful to limit its holding to the particular facts of the case and expressly cautioned against its application to other self-replicating technologies such as in biotechnology and computer science.

“Our holding today is limited – addressing the situation before us, rather than every one involving a self-replicating product. 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.”

Slip Op. at 10.

A Careful Balance

That is not to say, however, that the Supreme Court would not hold similarly for self-replicating inventions in the field of biotechnology with a few tweaks. In explaining the rationale for its holding, the Supreme Court noted that purchaser of the patented soybean seed gets full value in the initial purchase by planting and harvesting the seeds and that the purchaser of the patented seeds has full control over its initial use. The Court indicated that this might not be the case where the article’s self-replication occurs outside the purchaser’s control. As an example, the Court noted that making a copy might be an essential step in the utilization of the patented technology. One could see how the purchase of a population of stem cells, such as a population of induced pluripotent stem cells for drug screening, might need to replicate or copy the originally purchased cells to use them for drug screening. The same facts could apply to the use of a plasmid or recombinant gene in the laboratory or for therapy. Thus, the Supreme Court has kept open the question of how far a patentee can extend the patent monopoly over self-replicating technologies in biotechnology. Even so, it is clear that the Supreme Court is aware that current innovations in biotechnology and information technology are raising difficult questions over the proper scope of patent rights, and that the rights of patent owners and the public must carefully balanced.

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.

Related Services

Insights

CMS Proposes Enhanced Scrutiny over Medicaid Supplemental Payments
20 November 2019
Health Care Law Today
The Purpose of a Corporation
November 2019
Legal News: Business Law
Should This Be a "Mobility" Industry Blog?
19 November 2019
Dashboard Insights
Data Processing Patent Eligibility: Federal Circuit Finds Claims Eligible in KPN v. Gemalto
19 November 2019
IP Litigation Current
PATH Summit 2019
18-20 December 2019
Arlington, VA
Madison CLE Days
18-19 December 2019
Madison, WI
MedTech Impact Expo & Conference
13-15 December 2019
Las Vegas, NV
HFMA MA-RI Annual Compliance Update
12 December 2019
Boston, MA