1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Patents To Gene Sequences May Cover Plants And Seeds Containing The Patented Sequences

Patents To Gene Sequences May Cover Plants And Seeds Containing The Patented Sequences

Client Alert | 1 min read | 02.15.08

A Federal Circuit panel, in Monsanto Company v. Loren David (No. 07-1104 February 5, 2008), affirms a district court's finding of patent infringement. In so doing, the Court holds that a patent on a gene sequence entitles the holder of the patent to enforce its grant of exclusivity against growers of plant varieties that contain the patented gene sequence.

Monsanto’s patent covers a gene sequence that confers resistance to glyphosate herbicides. Monsanto distributes seeds containing the patented gene sequence by authorizing various companies to produce the seeds and sell them to farmers. David purchased the seed and signed a “Technology Agreement” which prohibited David from planting seeds produced from the purchased seed. David subsequently violated the Technology Agreement by planting seed produced by the seed. Monsanto sued for patent infringement.   At trial, the district court found, inter alia, that David infringed Monsanto’s patent. 

The Federal Circuit panel agrees with Monsanto’s position that patents to genetic material may be read on plants and seeds containing the patented genetic material and that those who save such seed are liable for infringement. In affirming the district courts decision, the Federal Circuit holds that Monsanto’s patent “covering the gene sequence is infringed by planting a seed containing the gene sequence. The gene itself is being used in the planting, an infringing act.”   

Insights

Client Alert | 8 min read | 06.30.25

AI Companies Prevail in Path-Breaking Decisions on Fair Use

Last week, artificial intelligence companies won two significant copyright infringement lawsuits brought by copyright holders, marking an important milestone in the development of the law around AI. These decisions – Bartz v. Anthropic and Kadrey v. Meta (decided on June 23 and 25, 2025, respectively), along with a February 2025 decision in Thomson Reuters v. ROSS Intelligence – suggest that AI companies have plausible defenses to the intellectual property claims that have dogged them since generative AI technologies became widely available several years ago. Whether AI companies can, in all cases, successfully assert that their use of copyrighted content is “fair” will depend on their circumstances and further development of the law by the courts and Congress....