Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, the U.S. Supreme Court has concluded that living things are patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
2000
Monsanto v. Dawson, WL 33953542. In the U.S. it has been found that “mistaken planting” of patented seeds is not a defense to patent infringement.
2001
J.E.M. Ag Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred Int’l Inc., 534 U.S. 124, 145, the Supreme Court held that a newly disclosed plant breed falls within the subject matter of 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Monsanto Co. v. Scruggs, 249 F. Supp.2d 746, 756-757 (N.D. Miss) “The PVPA is no impediment to the enforceability of … patents.” Id. at 756. “Lack of any formal execution” of a one-time limited license is not a defense to patent infringement in the U.S.
Monsanto v. Hartkamp, WL 34079482. “Lack of knowledge” of post sale restrictions or patent coverage is not a defense to patent infringement in the U.S.
Monsanto Co. v. Trantham, 156 F. Supp.2d 855, 869-870. The doctrine of exhaustion did not bar Monsanto’s claims for patent infringement because the sale of Monsanto’s patented gene technology was “expressly conditioned on the signing of the restrictive licensing agreement that prohibits the saving of seed and restricts the use of the seed to a single growing season.”
2002
Monsanto Co. v. McFarling, 302 F.3d 1291, 1299 In the U.S., the holder of a utility patent claiming a plant and a PVPA certificate may sue for infringement for post sale products without being restricted by the PVPA exemptions. “It is thus established that the right to save seed of plants registered under the PVPA does not impart the right to save seed of plants patented under the Patent Act.”
2004
Monsanto v. Roman, WL 1107671. “Lack of intent” is not a defense to patent infringement in the U.S..