Monsanto Canada Inc v Schmeiser

Last updated
Monsanto Canada Inc v Schmeiser
Supreme court of Canada in summer.jpg
Supreme Court of Canada
Hearing: January 20, 2004
Judgment: May 21, 2004
Full case namePercy Schmeiser and Schmeiser Enterprises Limited v Monsanto Canada Incorporated and Monsanto Company
Citations [2004] 1 S.C.R. 902, 2004 SCC 34, 239 D.L.R. (4th) 271, 31 C.P.R. (4th) 161
Docket No.29437 [1]
RulingMonsanto appeal allowed in part
Court membership
Chief Justice: Beverley McLachlin
Puisne Justices: John C. Major, Michel Bastarache, Ian Binnie, Louis LeBel, Marie Deschamps, Morris Fish, Rosalie Abella, Louise Charron
Reasons given
MajorityMcLachlin C.J. and Fish J. (paras. 1-106), joined by Major, Binnie, and Deschamps JJ.
DissentArbour J. (paras. 107-171), joined by Iacobucci, Bastarache, LeBel JJ.

Monsanto Canada Inc v Schmeiser [2004] 1 S.C.R. 902, 2004 SCC 34 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada case on patent rights for biotechnology, between a Canadian canola farmer, Percy Schmeiser, and the agricultural biotechnology company Monsanto. The court heard the question of whether Schmeiser's intentionally growing genetically modified plants constituted "use" of Monsanto's patented genetically modified plant cells. By a 5-4 majority, the court ruled that it did. The Supreme Court also ruled 9-0 that Schmeiser did not have to pay Monsanto their technology use fee, damages or costs, as Schmeiser did not receive any benefit from the technology. [2] The case drew worldwide attention and is widely misunderstood to concern what happens when farmers' fields are accidentally contaminated with patented seed. However, by the time the case went to trial, all claims of accidental contamination had been dropped; the court only considered the GM canola in Schmeiser's fields, which Schmeiser had intentionally concentrated and planted. Schmeiser did not put forward any defence of accidental contamination. [3]

Contents

Background

The biotechnology company Monsanto developed and patented a glyphosate-resistant gene for the canola plant which has the effect of producing canola that is resistant to glyphosate. Monsanto marketed the seed as Roundup Ready Canola. Farmers using the system are able to control weed competition using Roundup, while avoiding damage to the Roundup-resistant crops. Users are required to enter into a formal agreement with Monsanto, which specifies that new seed must be purchased every year, the purchase price of which includes a licensing fee to use the patent rights. Roundup Ready Canola was introduced in Canada in 1996, and by 1998, it accounted for 25% of the country's canola area. [4]

Origin of the patented seed in Schmeiser's fields

As established in the original Federal Court trial decision, Percy Schmeiser, a canola breeder and grower in Bruno, Saskatchewan, first discovered Roundup-resistant canola in his crops in 1997. [5] He had used Roundup herbicide to clear weeds around power poles and in ditches adjacent to a public road running beside one of his fields, and noticed that some of the canola which had been sprayed had survived. Schmeiser then performed a test by applying Roundup to an additional 3 acres (12,000 m2) to 4 acres (16,000 m2) of the same field. He found that 60% of the canola plants survived. At harvest time, Schmeiser instructed a farmhand to harvest the test field. That seed was stored separately from the rest of the harvest, and used the next year to seed approximately 1,000 acres (4 km2) of canola.

At the time, Roundup Ready canola was in use by several farmers in the area. Schmeiser claimed that he did not plant the initial Roundup Ready canola in 1997, and that his field of custom-bred canola had been accidentally contaminated. While the origin of the plants on Schmeiser's farm in 1997 remains unclear, the trial judge found that with respect to the 1998 crop, "none of the suggested sources [proposed by Schmeiser] could reasonably explain the concentration or extent of Roundup Ready canola of a commercial quality" ultimately present in Schmeiser's 1998 crop. [6]

Dispute

In 1998, Monsanto learned that Schmeiser was growing a Roundup-resistant crop and approached him to sign a license agreement to their patents and to pay a license fee. Schmeiser refused, maintaining that the 1997 contamination was accidental and that he owned the seed he harvested, and he could use the harvested seed as he wished because it was his physical property. Monsanto then sued Schmeiser for patent infringement, filing its case in Canadian federal court on August 6, 1998. [5] Negotiations to settle the matter collapsed on August 10, 1999, leading Schmeiser to file a countersuit against Monsanto for $10 million for libel, trespass, and contaminating his fields. [7] [8]

Patent rights versus property rights

Regarding the question of patent rights and the farmer's right to use seed taken from his fields, Monsanto said that because they hold a patent on the gene, and on canola cells containing the gene, they have a legal right to control its use, including the intentional replanting of seed collected from plants with the gene which grew accidentally. Schmeiser insisted on his "farmer's rights" to do anything he wished with seeds harvested from any plants grown on his field - including plants from seeds that were accidentally sown - and that this tangible property right overrides Monsanto's patent rights.

Canadian law does not mention any such "farmer's rights"; the court held that the farmer's right to save and replant seeds is simply the right of a property owner to use his or her property as he or she wishes, and hence the right to use the seeds is subject to the same legal restrictions on use rights that apply in any case of ownership of property, including restrictions arising from patents in particular. The court wrote: "Thus a farmer whose field contains seed or plants originating from seed spilled into them, or blown as seed, in swaths from a neighbour's land or even growing from germination by pollen carried into his field from elsewhere by insects, birds, or by the wind, may own the seed or plants on his land even if he did not set about to plant them. He does not, however, own the right to the use of the patented gene, or of the seed or plant containing the patented gene or cell." [5]

Publicity

Beginning with the lead-up to the initial Federal Court trial, the case drew widespread public attention and media coverage. The contest was portrayed by some as a classic David-and-Goliath confrontation between small farmer and Monsanto, while others portrayed it as theft of the results of years of research and development. [9] [10] [11] Environmental groups and anti-genetic engineering activists championed Schmeiser's cause and he spoke on the case around the world. [9] [10] [12] Others depicted the case as a contest between a large biotechnology company and an equally large and well funded anti-biotechnology industry [13] and raised concerns that the facts and context of the case was being misrepresented by Schmeiser, environmental groups and anti-genetic engineering activists. [13] [14] [15]

Monsanto v. Schmeiser was portrayed as being part of the process of legally defining the bounds of new biotechnologies, including genetic engineering and ownership of higher lifeforms. The case was frequently connected with that of the so-called Harvard mouse, where in 2002 the Canadian Supreme Court had rejected a patent for a special breed of mouse developed for research by Harvard University. The Canadian Harvard mouse case was a precedent-setting case in Canada with regard to the right to own higher lifeforms, where the Canadian ruling went against findings in the US and Europe, where the Harvard mouse patent was upheld. [9] The Canadian Supreme Court eventually took pains to point out that the Monsanto v Schmeiser case focused on genes in seeds, and not on higher life forms; it was "the first in which the top court of any country has ruled on patent issues involving plants and seed genes." [16]

Initial trial and appeal

The issues of patent infringement and "farmer's rights" were settled, in Monsanto's favour, at the trial before the Federal Court of Canada [5] and upheld at the appeal level before the Federal Court of Appeal. Both courts found that a key element in Mr. Schmeiser's patent infringement in his 1998 crop was that he knew or ought to have known the nature of the glyphosate-resistant seed he saved and planted.

The case was initially tried on June 5, 2000, in the Federal Court of Canada, at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. [17]

All claims relating to Roundup Ready canola in Schmeiser's 1997 canola crop were dropped prior to trial and the court only considered the canola in Schmeiser's 1998 fields. Regarding his 1998 crop, Schmeiser did not put forward any defence of accidental contamination. The evidence showed that the level of Roundup Ready canola in Mr. Schmeiser's 1998 fields was 95-98%. [5] Evidence was presented indicating that such a level of purity could not occur by accidental means. On the basis of this the court found that Schmeiser had either known "or ought to have known" that he had planted Roundup Ready canola in 1998. Given this, the question of whether the canola in his fields in 1997 arrived there accidentally was ruled to be irrelevant. Nonetheless, at trial, Monsanto was able to present evidence sufficient to persuade the Court that Roundup Ready canola had probably not appeared in Schmeiser's 1997 field by such accidental means (paragraph 118 [5] ). The court said it was persuaded "on the balance of probabilities" (the standard of proof in civil cases, meaning "more probable than not" i.e. strictly greater than 50% probability) that the Roundup Ready canola in Mr. Schmeiser's 1997 field had not arrived there by any of the accidental means, such as spillage from a truck or pollen travelling on the wind, that Mr. Schmeiser had proposed.

In the public arena, Schmeiser supporters argued that his account still leaves open the possibility that the harvesting and replanting of Roundup Ready canola from the sprayed region was accidental and resulted from a miscommunication between Schmeiser and his farmhand, or from a failure of Schmeiser to have the presence of mind to instruct his farmhand to avoid taking canola seed for replanting from the sprayed region. Supporters of Monsanto argued that an oversight of this nature is not plausible, especially in light of Schmeiser's claims regarding the extent to which he considered Roundup Ready canola undesirable in his fields and the importance he claims to have placed on the continued survival of his own strain of canola, and in light of his having been notified prior to planting his 1998 crop that Monsanto believed he had grown Roundup Ready canola in 1997. Legally, an oversight of this nature is not a defence against patent infringement, and was therefore irrelevant. Patents are civil law, and the presence or absence of "guilty intent" is not a factor in determining patent infringement. [5] : Para 115  On this point, the Federal Court of Appeal noted that accidental genetic contamination of a crop beyond a farmer's control should be an exception to the rule that intent is not an issue in patent disputes.

The Court's ruling concluded:

... on the balance of probabilities, the defendants infringed a number of the claims under the plaintiffs’ Canadian patent number 1,313,830 by planting, in 1998, without leave or licence by the plaintiffs, canola fields with seed saved from the 1997 crop which seed was known, or ought to have been known by the defendants to be Roundup tolerant and when tested was found to contain the gene and cells claimed under the plaintiffs’ patent. By selling the seed harvested in 1998 the defendants further infringed the plaintiffs’ patent." [5]

The case was then heard by the Federal Court of Appeal at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, beginning May 15, 2002. The Federal Court of Appeal upheld the ruling of the trial judge. [18]

The Federal Court of Appeal in particular stressed the importance of the finding that Schmeiser had knowingly used the seed, in their decision to find Schmeiser in infringement of the patent, and noted that in a case of accidental contamination or a case where the farmer knew of the presence of the gene but took no action to increase its prevalence in his crop, a different ruling could be possible (see paragraphs 55-58 of the appeal ruling [18] ). No damages were assessed against Percy Schmeiser, the private individual. Only Mr. Schmeiser's farming corporation, Schmeiser Enterprises Ltd., was held liable, as Mr. Schmeiser had acted in his capacity as director of the corporation.

Leave was requested of the Supreme Court of Canada to hear the case. This was granted in May, 2003, and the appeal hearing began on January 20, 2004. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether Schmeiser's planting and cultivation of genetically modified canola constituted "use" of Monsanto's patented invention of genetically modified canola cells. [19]

Intervening on Schmeiser’s behalf were a consortium of six non-government organizations (Council of Canadians; Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration; Sierra Club; National Farmers Union; Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology; and the International Center for Technology Assessment) and the Attorney General of Ontario. [20] [21]

Arguments

Schmeiser's principal defence at trial was that as he had not applied Roundup herbicide to his canola he had not used the invention. This argument was rejected; the court said that the patent granted for the invention did not specify the use of Roundup as part of the invention, and thus there was no basis for introducing the requirement that Roundup had to be used in order for the invention to be used. That is, a patent prohibits unauthorized use of an invention in any manner, not merely unauthorized use for its intended purpose.

The Court considered the question of whether knowingly (or, where one ought to have known) planting and cultivating genetically modified canola constitutes "use" of Monsanto's patented invention of genetically modified canola cells, even if the crop is not treated with Roundup and the presence of the gene affords no advantage to the farmer. The court ruled in favour of Monsanto, holding that his use of the patented genes and cells was analogous to the use of a machine containing a patented part: "It is no defence to say that the thing actually used was not patented, but only one of its components." (Supreme Court Decision, Paragraph 78 [19] ) The court also held that by planting genetically modified Roundup resistant canola, Schmeiser made use of the "stand-by" or insurance utility of the invention. That is, he left himself the option of using Roundup on the crop should the need arise. This was considered to be analogous to the installation of patented pumps on a ship: even if the pumps are never actually switched on, they are still used by being available for pumping if the need arises.

Judgment

On May 21, 2004, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Monsanto. Schmeiser won a partial victory, where the court held that he did not have to pay Monsanto his profits from his 1998 crop, since the presence of the gene in his crops had not afforded him any advantage and he had made no profits on the crop that were attributable to the invention. The amount of profits at stake was relatively small, C$19,832; however, by not having to pay damages, Schmeiser was also saved from having to pay Monsanto's legal bills, which amounted to several hundred thousand dollars and exceeded his own.

Reasons of the Court

The majority was written by McLachlin C.J. with Major, Binnie, Deschamps and Fish JJ. concurring.

The Court dismissed the argument that "use" of patented cells or genes applied only in the context of their isolated form. Nor does the fact that Schmeiser did not use Roundup herbicide on his crops preclude "use" of the gene. Even though the plants propagate without human intervention the realities of modern agriculture mean there is always human intervention in the growth of plants and thus farming is a method of "use" of plant genes.

The Court ruled that Schmeiser deprived Monsanto of its monopoly on the special canola plant by storing and planting the Roundup Ready canola seeds pursuant to his commercial interests. Thus, Schmeiser is considered to have infringed section 42 of the Patent Act. The Court, however, disagreed with the damages given by the trial judge as there was no profit directly resulting from the invention itself.

In the ruling, the court made it clear that patent infringement was the sole consideration, and concerns related to genetic engineering in agriculture were not within the scope of the case:

93 Inventions in the field of agriculture may give rise to concerns not raised in other fields -- moral concerns about whether it is right to manipulate genes in order to obtain better weed control or higher yields. It is open to Parliament to consider these concerns and amend the Patent Act should it find them persuasive. [19]
94 Our task, however, is to interpret and apply the Patent Act as it stands, in accordance with settled principles. Under the present Act, an invention in the domain of agriculture is as deserving of protection as an invention in the domain of mechanical science. Where Parliament has not seen fit to distinguish between inventions concerning plants and other inventions, neither should the courts. [19]

Dissent

Arbour J., writing for Iacobucci, Bastarache, and LeBel JJ., dissented in part. The reasoning of the dissent closely follows that of the majority in Harvard College v. Canada (Commissioner of Patents) that concluded that though a company can patent products and processes, they cannot patent higher forms of life such as the whole plant itself. That is, "the plant cell claim cannot extend past the point where the genetically modified cell begins to multiply and differentiate into plant tissues, at which point the claim would be for every cell in the plant" (para. 138 [19] ), which would extend the patent too far. The patent can only be for the founder plant and not necessarily its offspring.

Consequences

The courts at all three levels noted that the case of accidental contamination beyond the farmer's control was not under consideration but rather that Mr. Schmeiser's action of having identified, isolated and saved the Roundup-resistant seed placed the case in a different category. The appellate court also discussed a possible intermediate scenario, in which a farmer is aware of contamination of his crop by genetically modified seed, but tolerates its presence and takes no action to increase its abundance in his crop. The court held that whether such a case would constitute patent infringement remains an open question but that it was a question that did not need to be decided in the Schmeiser case.(Paragraph 57 of the Appeals Court Decision [18] )

The ruling did increase the protection available to biotechnology companies in Canada, a situation which had been left open with the Harvard mouse decision, where it was determined that a "higher lifeform", such as an animal, or by extension a plant, cannot be patented. This put Canada at odds with the other G8 countries where the patent had been granted. In Monsanto vs. Schmeiser, it was determined that protection of a patented gene or cell extends to its presence in a whole plant, even while the plant itself, as a higher lifeform, cannot be patented. This majority view, based on the precedent of mechanical devices, was central to the Supreme Court's decision, and put the onus on the Canadian Parliament to make distinctions between machines and lifeforms as it saw fit.

In 2005, a "documentary theatre" production dramatizing the court battle, entitled Seeds, by Annabel Soutar, was staged in Montreal, Quebec. The dialogue was derived entirely verbatim from various archival sources.

The case is widely cited or referenced by the anti-GM community in the context of a fear of a company claiming ownership of a farmer’s crop based on the inadvertent presence of GM pollen grain or seed. [22] [23] "The court record shows, however, that it was not just a few seeds from a passing truck, but that Mr Schmeiser was growing a crop of 95–98% pure Roundup Ready plants, a commercial level of purity far higher than one would expect from inadvertent or accidental presence. The judge could not account for how a few wayward seeds or pollen grains could come to dominate hundreds of acres without Mr Schmeiser’s active participation, saying ‘. . .none of the suggested sources could reasonably explain the concentration or extent of Roundup Ready canola of a commercial quality evident from the results of tests on Schmeiser’s crop’" - in other words, even if the original presence of Monsanto seed on his land in 1997 was inadvertent, the crop in 1998 was entirely purposeful. [3]

See also

Related Research Articles

The Monsanto Company was an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri. Monsanto's best-known product is Roundup, a glyphosate-based herbicide, developed in the 1970s. Later, the company became a major producer of genetically engineered crops. In 2018, the company ranked 199th on the Fortune 500 of the largest United States corporations by revenue.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Rapeseed</span> Plant species grown for its oil-rich seed

Rapeseed, also known as rape and oilseed rape, is a bright-yellow flowering member of the family Brassicaceae, cultivated mainly for its oil-rich seed, which naturally contains appreciable amounts of erucic acid. The term "canola" denotes a group of rapeseed cultivars that were bred to have very low levels of erucic acid and which are especially prized for use as human and animal food. Rapeseed is the third-largest source of vegetable oil and the second-largest source of protein meal in the world.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Percy Schmeiser</span> Canadian farmer, businessman, and politician (1931–2020)

Percy Schmeiser was a Canadian businessman, farmer, and politician. In 1954, he took over the operations of the family owned farm, gas station, and farm equipment dealership. He renamed the farm equipment dealership Schmeiser's Garage and added a second farm equipment dealership in Humboldt, Saskatchewan in 1986 and oversaw their operations until their sale in 2003.

Since the advent of genetic engineering in the 1970s, concerns have been raised about the dangers of the technology. Laws, regulations, and treaties were created in the years following to contain genetically modified organisms and prevent their escape. Nevertheless, there are several examples of failure to keep GM crops separate from conventional ones.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Genetically modified food controversies</span>

Genetically modified food controversies are disputes over the use of foods and other goods derived from genetically modified crops instead of conventional crops, and other uses of genetic engineering in food production. The disputes involve consumers, farmers, biotechnology companies, governmental regulators, non-governmental organizations, and scientists. The key areas of controversy related to genetically modified food are whether such food should be labeled, the role of government regulators, the objectivity of scientific research and publication, the effect of genetically modified crops on health and the environment, the effect on pesticide resistance, the impact of such crops for farmers, and the role of the crops in feeding the world population. In addition, products derived from GMO organisms play a role in the production of ethanol fuels and pharmaceuticals.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Roundup Ready</span> Trademark for genetically modified crop seeds

Roundup Ready is the Bayer trademark for its patented line of genetically modified crop seeds that are resistant to its glyphosate-based herbicide, Roundup.

Genetically modified canola is a genetically modified crop. The first strain, Roundup Ready canola, was developed by Monsanto for tolerance to glyphosate, the active ingredient in the commonly used herbicide Roundup.

The Center for Food Safety (CFS) is a 501(c)(3), U.S. non-profit advocacy organization, based in Washington, D.C. It maintains an office in San Francisco, California, and Portland, Oregon. CFS's mission is to empower people, support farmers, and protect the earth from the harmful impacts of industrial agriculture through groundbreaking legal, scientific, and grassroots action. It was founded in 1997.

The International Center for Technology Assessment (ICTA) is a U.S. non-profit bi-partisan organization, based in Washington, D.C.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mendocino County GMO Ban</span>

Mendocino County, California, was the first jurisdiction in the United States to ban the cultivation, production or distribution of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The ordinance, entitled Measure H, was passed by referendum on March 2, 2004. Initiated by the group "GMO Free Mendocino", the campaign was a highly publicized grassroots effort by local farmers and environmental groups who contend that the potential risks of GMOs to human health and the ecosystem have not yet been fully understood. The measure was met with opposition by several interest groups representing the biotechnology industry, The California Plant Health Association and CropLife America, a Washington-based consortium whose clients represent some of the largest food distributors in the nation, including Monsanto, DuPont and Dow Chemical. Since the enactment of the ordinance, Mendocino County has been added to an international list of "GMO free zones." Pre-emptive statutes banning local municipalities from such ordinances have now become widespread with adoption in sixteen states.

Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, 561 U.S. 139 (2010), is a United States Supreme Court case decided 7-1 in favor of Monsanto. The decision allowed Monsanto to sell genetically modified alfalfa seeds to farmers, and allowed farmers to plant them, grow crops, harvest them, and sell the crop into the food supply. The case came about because the use of the seeds was approved by regulatory authorities; the approval was challenged in district court by Geertson Seed Farms and other groups who were concerned that the genetically modified alfalfa would spread too easily, and the challengers won. Monsanto appealed the district court decision and lost, and appealed again to the Supreme Court, where Monsanto won, thus upholding the original approval and allowing the seeds to be sold.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Patent infringement in Canadian law</span>

Once an invention is patented in Canada, exclusive rights are granted to the patent holder as defined by s.42 of the Patent Act. Any interference with the patent holder's "full enjoyment of the monopoly granted by the patent" is considered a patent infringement. Making, constructing, using, or selling a patented invention without the patent holder's permission can constitute infringement. Possession of a patented object, use of a patented object in a process, and inducement or procurement of an infringement may also, in some cases, count as infringement.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Subject matter in Canadian patent law</span>

In Canadian patent law, only “inventions” are patentable. Under the Patent Act, only certain categories of things may be considered and defined as inventions. Therefore, if a patent discloses an item that fulfills the requirements of novelty, non-obviousness and utility, it may nonetheless be found invalid on the grounds that it does not fall within one of the statutory categories of “invention”. Since the Patent Act, the categories of patentable subject matter have been defined and interpreted by Canadian courts.

Bowman v. Monsanto Co., 569 U.S. 278 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court patent decision in which the Court unanimously affirmed the decision of the Federal Circuit that the patent exhaustion doctrine does not permit a farmer to plant and grow saved, patented seeds without the patent owner's permission. The case arose after Vernon Hugh Bowman, an Indiana farmer, bought transgenic soybean crop seeds from a local grain elevator for his second crop of the season. Monsanto originally sold the seed from which these soybeans were grown to farmers under a limited use license that prohibited the farmer-buyer from using the seeds for more than a single season or from saving any seed produced from the crop for replanting. The farmers sold their soybean crops to the local grain elevator, from which Bowman then bought them. After Bowman replanted the crop seeds for his second harvest, Monsanto filed a lawsuit claiming that he infringed on their patents by replanting soybeans without a license. In response, Bowman argued that Monsanto's claims were barred under the doctrine of patent exhaustion, because all future generations of soybeans were embodied in the first generation that was originally sold.

Monsanto Technology LLC v Cefetra BV and Others (2010) was a preliminary ruling by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) regarding the legal protection of biotechnological inventions. The case dealt with the interpretation of Article 9 of Directive 98/44/EC on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions, and it was the first ECJ interpretation of the 1998 directive.

The Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association (OSGATA) is a trade association based in Maine, United States, which represents organic farmers, seed growers and seed suppliers.

Monsanto was involved in several high-profile lawsuits, as both plaintiff and defendant. It had been defendant in a number of lawsuits over health and environmental issues related to its products. Monsanto also made frequent use of the courts to defend its patents, particularly in the area of agricultural biotechnology. Bayer acquired Monsanto in 2018, and the company has since been involved in litigation related to ex-Monsanto products such as glyphosate, PCBs and dicamba. In 2020 it paid over $10 billion to settle lawsuits involving the glyphosate based herbicide Roundup.

J. E. M. Ag Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc., 534 U.S. 124 (2001), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court holding for the first time that utility patents may be issued for crops and other flowering plants under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court rejected the argument that the exclusive ways to protect these plants are under the Plant Variety Protection Act (PVPA), 7 U.S.C. § 2321, and the Plant Patent Act of 1930 (PPA), 35 U.S.C. §§ 161-164.

<i>Percy</i> (2020 film) 2020 biographical film directed by Clark Johnson

Percy is a 2020 Canadian-American-Indian biographical drama film, directed by Clark Johnson from a screenplay by Garfield Lindsay Miller and Hilary Pryor. It stars Christopher Walken, Christina Ricci, Zach Braff, Luke Kirby, Adam Beach, Martin Donovan, Roberta Maxwell and Peter Stebbings. The film follows 70-year-old small-town Saskatchewan farmer Percy Schmeiser, who takes on a giant corporation after their GMOs interfere with his crops.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Rapeseed oil</span> Vegetable oil

Rapeseed oil is one of the oldest known vegetable oils. There are both edible and industrial forms produced from rapeseed, the seed of several cultivars of the plant family Brassicaceae. Historically, it was restricted as a food oil due to its content of erucic acid, which in laboratory studies was shown to be damaging to the cardiac muscle of laboratory animals in high quantities and which imparts a bitter taste, and glucosinolates, which made many parts of the plant less nutritious in animal feed. Rapeseed oil from standard cultivars can contain up to 54% erucic acid.

References

  1. ↑ SCC Case Information - Docket 29437 Supreme Court of Canada
  2. ↑ Canadian Supreme Court Decision
  3. 1 2 McHughen, A; Wager, R (2010). "Popular misconceptions: agricultural biotechnology". New Biotechnol. 27 (6): 724–8. doi:10.1016/j.nbt.2010.03.006. PMID   20359558.
  4. ↑ Achievements in Plant Biotechnology - Evaluation: Canola. Monsanto Company; 2001. Retrieved 4-Apr-2006. Archived March 16, 2006, at the Wayback Machine
  5. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Federal court of Canada. Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser Date: 20010329 Docket: T-1593-98 Retrieved 26-Mar-2006.
  6. ↑ Albainy-Jenei, Stephen R. "Muckraking Columnist Takes on Biotech Industry" Archived 2006-03-26 at the Wayback Machine . 16-Dec-2005. Retrieved 25-Mar-2006.
  7. ↑ Adrian Ewins for the Western Producer. August 19, 1999 Legal battle over patented canola set for next June
  8. ↑ Note: As of 2007, Schmeiser had not started to prosecute the countersuit., as per Peter W. B. Phillips. Farmers' Privilege and Patented Seeds. Chapter 3 in Accessing and Sharing the Benefits of the Genomics Revolution eds. Peter W. B. Phillips, Chika B. Onwuekwe. Springer, 2007, p58
  9. 1 2 3 "Percy Schmeiser's battle". CBC. 21 May 2014. Retrieved 10 February 2015.
  10. 1 2 Broydo, Leora (13 December 2000). "The Trouble With Percy". Mother Jones. Retrieved 10 February 2015.
  11. ↑ Foss, Krsta (8 April 2002). "Fight against Monsanto vaults farmer into spotlight". Globe and Mail. Retrieved 10 February 2015.
  12. ↑ Ilo, Merita (2 October 2007). "Canadian couple win 'alternative Nobel'". Toronto Star. Retrieved 10 February 2015.
  13. 1 2 Wager, R. Saskatoon Star Phoenix. 15/04/2005. "Convicted farmer makes unlikely hero for rural lifestyle"
  14. ↑ Hursh, K. 21/01/2004. The Leader-Post "Don't Pity Poor Percy
  15. ↑ Schwarts, J. 09/11/2002 Montreal Gazette "When excuses won’t fly: No seed of doubt in canola trial. Farmer claim’s he’s victim of corporate cruelty but explanations don’t stand up to scrutiny"
  16. ↑ Makin, Kirk (22 May 2004). "Plant genes, modified cells can be patented, court rules". Globe and Mail. Retrieved 10 February 2015.
  17. ↑ By Fred Bridgland for Environmental Newswire. June 19, 2000 Farmer v. Monsanto: GM Seed Fight in Canadian Court
  18. 1 2 3 Federal Court of Appeal of Canada. Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser (C.A.) [2003] 2 F.C. 165. Retrieved 25-Mar-2006.
  19. 1 2 3 4 5 Supreme Court Decision Archived 2012-09-05 at the Wayback Machine
  20. ↑ Canada’s Supreme Court Hears Percy Schmeiser’s Appeal Archived 2016-03-04 at the Wayback Machine , History Commons, January 20, 2004
  21. ↑ Small farmer's fight becomes anti-biotech crusade By Paul Elias, USA TODAY, 1/19/2004
  22. ↑ CT NOFA is the Connecticut Chapter of the Northeast Organic Farming Association Suing Monsanto: Intellectual Property, Genetic Contamination, and Farmers' Rights - Notice of 2011 talk being given Archived 2013-06-03 at the Wayback Machine
  23. ↑ Democracy Now. Sept 17, 2012 Percy Schmeiser, Percy Schmeiser vs Monsanto: The Story of a Canadian Farmer’s Fight to Defend the Rights of Farmers and the Future of Seeds Quote: "When Monsanto seeds blew into Schmeiser’s property, Monsanto accused him of illegally planting their crops and took him to court. "
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.