In a unanimous ruling delivered today, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed its support for protecting U.S. innovations that are a critical part of supporting the world’s growing needs. The case, Bowman v. Monsanto, centered on the protection of intellectual property and its outcome was crucial for innovations that deliver benefits to millions of Americans.
The Supreme Court’s decision affirms the basic purpose of the U.S. patent system – providing an incentive to innovate by providing inventors a meaningful opportunity to recover costs on their R&D investments. The decision also reflects the Court’s sensitivity to the importance of patent protection … Full Article »
The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments today in Bowman v. Monsanto, a case that highlights the crucial role that patent protection plays in fostering and protecting U.S. innovation across a broad range of industries—including agriculture, medicine, computer software, and environmental science—that deliver benefits to millions of Americans.
Monsanto’s arguments to the Court underscored the role that patent rights play in enabling innovation in biotechnology and other fields where breakthrough discoveries require substantial R&D investments that depend upon the protections afforded under U.S. patent law.
“Today’s case highlights the importance of intellectual property protection in supporting America’s continued investments … Full Article »
The United States Supreme Court agreed Friday to hear the court case Bowman v. Monsanto that explored whether Monsanto’s intellectual property rights extend to second generation seeds.
In a brief statement to the press, the company said:
The key issue in Bowman v. Monsanto was whether Monsanto’s intellectual property rights extend to second generation seeds. The infringer argued that Monsanto’s patent rights in seeds obtained from a grain elevator that were harvested by other farmers had been exhausted. The district court rejected this argument and awarded damages to Monsanto for the infringement. The Federal Circuit affirmed, holding that Monsanto’s intellectual
… Full Article »