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.
2018 Juristant Badge - MBHB_165
Juristat #4 Overall Rank

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


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.
Juristat_165
Juristat #8 Overall Rank

Pharma-50-transparent_216px_red

« Conference & CLE Calendar | Main | Docs at BIO: Representatives from JPO, EPO, SIPO, and USPTO Discuss Recent Developments in Japan, Europe, China, and the U.S. »

June 22, 2008

Comments

After going after numerous small fry with a bazooka, on their home turf rather in the defendant's backyard as the law requires, I'd like nothing better than to see Monsanto get its behind nailed on this. But I don't see how one can argue with a straight face that seeds saved from year to year aren't covered by at least one claim of the patent, which includes claims on transfected plant cells. I give the plaintiffs an A for effort, though.

Interesting. Claim 4 of the '605 patent-in-suit reads as follows:

4. A plant cell which comprises a chimeric gene that contains a promoter from cauliflower mosaic virus, said promoter selected from the group consisting of a CaMV (35S) promoter and a CaMV (19S) promoter, wherein said promoter is isolated from CaMV protein-encoding DNA sequences, and a structural sequence which is heterologous with respect to the promoter.

Assuming the seeds all contain the construct (which is the basis for the herbicide resistance), it would appear that the seeds would infringe this claim because growing the plant would "make" more plant cells containing the construct.

Curiously, the attorney who signed the complaint appears to be a registered patent attorney, which suggests that an interesting theory may be brewing in this case. The patent bar might appreciate receiving updates on the theory of the case as the lawsuit proceeds.

The comments to this entry are closed.

December 2019

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