Bowman v. Monsanto: Revisiting the Exhaustion Doctrine and its Application to Biotechnology and Digital Technologies


  • Susan Kling Finston Finston Consulting, LLC



Bowman v. Monsanto, exhaustion doctrine, self-replicating inventions, GM Seed,


On February 19, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Bowman v. Monsanto – the first case to directly present the question of how the Exhaustion Doctrine should apply to patents relating to biotechnology and digital technology inventions.  The Petitioner, Vernon Hugh Bowman, asserts that the Exhaustion Doctrine should be extended to advanced agricultural technologies where the technology itself is contained in genetically modified seeds that may be reproduced through successive generations of seeds without limitation, and that companies like Monsanto can instead rely on remedies found in contract law to protect its commercial interests.  The Respondent, Monsanto Corporation, supported by the U.S. Government, (not surprisingly) disagrees, contending that an extension of the Exhaustion Doctrine of this magnitude would undercut effective patent protection for inventions that may reproduce perfectly over generations, undermining R&D in innovative technologies.  
During the Bowman v. Monsanto oral argument on February 19th, the Justices focused on the broad scope of the exception sought by the Petitioner to patent rights for GM seed as an extension of the Exhaustion Doctrine to biotechnology and digital technology inventions, and did not appear persuaded either that the only reasonable use of the soybeans by Bowman was to plant them or that right holders would find effective modes of protection through contract law.  The Justices noted that this was the first case to present the intersection of the Exhaustion Doctrine and effective protection for inventions that may be reproduced across generations – that intersection to be the issue of greatest interest to the Court in  Bowman v. Monsanto, where the Court may be unlikely to create a sweeping exception to patent rights for biotechnology or digital technology inventions that has not been contemplated by the Congress.

Author Biography

Susan Kling Finston, Finston Consulting, LLC

Susan works with innovative biotechnology and other clients ranging from start-up to Fortune-100, providing support for legal, transactional, policy and “doing business†issues relating to intellectual property and knowledge-economy issues in advanced developing countries including India and South Asia, Latin America and the Middle East North Africa (MENA) region. She also works with governments and NGOs on capacity building and outreach through BayhDole25. Together with biotechnology pioneer Ananda Chakrabarty, she also is co-founder of Amrita Therapeutics Ltd., an emerging biopharmaceutical company based in India with cancer peptide drugs entering in vivo research. Previous experience includes 11 years in the U.S Foreign Service with overseas tours in London, Tel Aviv, and Manila and at the Department of State in Washington DC.


Monsanto Co. v. Bowman, 686 F. Supp. 2d 834 (S.D. Ind. 2009).

Jazz Photo Corp v. International Trade Commission, 264 F3D 1094, 11-2 Fed Cir. 2001), Cert Denied, 536 U.S. 950 (2002)

Monsanto Co. v. Bowman, 657 F3d 1341 (Fed Cir.2011

Quanta Computer Inc., v. IG Elecs., Inc., 553 U.S. 617, 631 (2008)

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, Bowman v. Monsanto Co. (Dec 11, 2011), available online at

Bowman v. Monsanto Oral Argument Transcript, available online at





Legal and Regulatory Updates