E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Contact the Docs

Docs on Twitter


About the Authors

  • The Authors and Contributors of "Patent Docs" are patent attorneys and agents, many of whom hold doctorates in a diverse array of disciplines.

Disclaimer

  • "Patent Docs" does not contain any legal advice whatsoever. This weblog is for informational purposes only, and its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. In addition, nothing on "Patent Docs" constitutes a solicitation for business. This weblog is intended primarily for other attorneys. Moreover, "Patent Docs" is the personal weblog of the Authors; it is not edited by the Authors' employers or clients and, as such, no part of this weblog may be so attributed. All posts on "Patent Docs" should be double-checked for their accuracy and current applicability.

  • Law Blogs

Become a Fan

« Parties Reiterate Arguments from Certiorari Petitions in Briefs to Supreme Court | Main | Gunn v. Minton (2013) »

February 19, 2013

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451ca1469e2017c36fc9515970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Bowman v. Monsanto: Oral Argument:

Comments

The closest thing to a self-reproducing invention, outside of living organisms, is the novel crystal polymorph.

No court would fail to find infringement if someone were to crystallize a large batch of a pharmaceutical with a small sample of patented seed crystals, nor would any court find that the patent rights were exhausted when the seed crystals were legally purchased.

Justice Scalia touched on this when he noted that successor generations are "not the very seed that was sold." This is a powerful analogy for Monsanto, should they make it, and Bowman would have a very hard time explaining why biology should be treated differently from chemistry.

Kevin,

Based on how Scalia (who appears to have been well-prepared) 0exposed the fallacies in Walter's argument for Bowman, and given that Seth Waxman was arguing for Monsanto, what you see in this oral argument transcript doesn't bode well for Bowman.

During the oral argument I found myself wondering why the Supreme Court took the case. Here is the conclusion I reached: http://www.biotechblog.com/2013/02/20/bowman-v-monsanto-intersection-of-the-exhaustion-doctrine-and-effective-protection-for-reinvented-articles/

"Supreme Court tea-leaf reading is a fool's game"

Keep practicing, Kevin. You'll get better at it.

Hmmummm, I do beliebe the citation here was to Pioneer's brief, not the ASA.

"American Soybean Association amicus brief and the likelihood that some of the commingled commodity grain would be covered by PVPA Certificates"

The comments to this entry are closed.

July 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31