Monsanto Canada Inc. developed a strain of canola seed that was resistant to a herbicide that Monsanto produced. Monsanto patented this strain of genetically-engineered seed. Schmeiser, a farmer, noticed that some of his crop was resistant to this herbicide. He collected these seeds and replanted them. When it turned out his plants contained the genetically-modified genes, Monsanto sued for patent infringement. In the case of Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser, what did the Supreme Court of Canada hold?
A) One can patent genetically altered plant forms. Monsanto lost the action, however, as the farmer's infringement was not deliberate.
B) One cannot patent genetically altered plant forms. Life forms cannot properly be the subject of a patent application.
C) One can patent genetically altered plant forms. By collecting, saving, and planting the seeds, the farmer infringed the Patent Act.
D) While genetically altered plant forms can be patented for medical purposes, they cannot be patented for commercial gain.
E) Possession of genetically-modified plants is illegal in Canada. Accordingly, the civil action was dismissed.
Correct Answer:
Verified
Q87: Cadbury Schweppes Inc. v. FBI Foods Ltd.
Q88: Three students chose to work on a
Q89: The effect of an Anton Piller Order
Q90: Which of the following is true with
Q91: In an article about the patents held
Q93: A computer programmer created a program and
Q94: In Baker Petrolite Corp. v. Canwell Enviro-Industries
Q95: If Weird Al wants to take "Blue
Q96: Which of the following is not a
Q97: Which of the following correctly matches the
Unlock this Answer For Free Now!
View this answer and more for free by performing one of the following actions
Scan the QR code to install the App and get 2 free unlocks
Unlock quizzes for free by uploading documents