In Bowman v. Monsanto, where Bowman used Monsanto's patented Roundup Ready seeds and, in violation of the contract provided by Monsanto, kept seeds from his crop to use next year so that the seeds had the genetic composition of the Monsanto seeds. The Supreme Court held that:
A) Monsanto's patent failed for obviousness, so there was no fringement
B) Monsanto's patent failed because it was prior art, so there was no infringement
C) there was no infringement because the seeds were in the public domain
D) none of the other choices

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The Supreme Court held that Bowman's use of Monsanto's patented seeds without authorization was an infringement of the patent, and that the doctrine of exhaustion did not apply to saved seeds. The Court did not find the patent obvious or invalid based on prior art, nor did it find the seeds to be in the public domain.

In Bowman V