美國最高法院就「包曼v. 孟山都公司」（Bowman v. Monsanto Company）（註1）案於2013年5月13日作成一致判決（無不同意見），認為專利權利耗盡原則「並不能允許農夫在未得專利權人許可的情況下，用種植與收穫的方式來重製該獲有專利之種子」。

也就是說，專利的權利耗盡原則雖允許專利產品之合法買家與其後手，擁有「使用」與「再銷售」該專利產品的權利。但法院認為此銷售行為，並不允許合法買家去「複製」該專利發明。

孟山都（Monsanto）公司發明了一種基因改良技術，可使其基改黃豆（GM Soybean）能夠抵禦眾多除草劑的主要成份，嘉磷塞（glyphosate），的噴灑而存活，而該嘉磷塞也是孟山都自己生產的Roundup^TM品牌除草劑的主要成分。孟山都乃以Roundup Ready^TM品牌來行銷此種基因改造過的黃豆種子。因此，種植該基改黃豆種子的農夫可以使用含嘉磷塞的除草劑以去除雜草，但不會傷害他們的作物。孟山都除了本身銷售，也允許其它公司銷售該Roundup Ready^TM品牌基改黃豆種子予那些同意其特別授權協議的種植者。

因為該抗嘉磷塞的能力乃源自種子經改造之基因物質，而該特性會從種植的種子傳遞至其所收穫的黃豆。所以，該授權協議乃規定，農人不可以保留所收穫之黃豆種子以再種植，也不可以將其提供他人為如此之目的。這個授權協議如此的規定，可以防止農人使用種植收穫留種的程序來製造他自己的Roundup Ready^TM 種子，而強迫他們每季都要向孟山都購買該基改黃豆種子（註2）。

上訴人維儂‧包曼（Vernon Bowman）是印第安那州的農夫，他過去曾取得授權使用過孟山都的基改產品。此次他購買了用途為供人類或動物食用，並非用來種植的「商品黃豆」（commodity soybeans），這些商品黃豆來自於當地其他農人前期使用Roundup Ready^TM基改黃豆種子的收穫，然後包曼在他的田地上種植了這些商品黃豆。在使用了以嘉磷塞為主要成分的除草劑後，包曼不能避免的注意到這些商品黃豆其實就是孟山都所銷售的Roundup Ready^TM基改黃豆。因此，包曼保存了成長作物的收穫（黃豆）為種子，並將其用於次年季末以及以後數年的黃豆種植上，而未支付孟山都分文，對於孟山都而言，此即問題之所在（註3）。

孟山都控告包曼侵害其有關Roundup Ready^TM種子的專利，而包曼提出專利權利耗盡原則做為抗辯，聲稱因為這些黃豆為前合法銷售行為的標的（商品黃豆），孟山都並無權控制其如何「使用」黃豆。法院的判決則認為專利耗盡原則並不能保護包曼，因為他「創造了一個新的侵權產品」，且因為包曼並不可以「用種植於土地的方式，『複製』(replicate)孟山都的專利技術，來產生新的侵權基因材料、種子與植物」。

基改作物是設計來創造具有較高產量或擁有較高抵抗力的農作物。要製造一種基改作物需要先期投資大量金錢於其研發。而孟山都的營運模式乃是透過研發投資產生基改作物，然後在專利效期內推廣此產品以回收成本（並獲得盈利）。美國最高法院贊同此營運模式，並引據說明專利權應鼓勵創新與研發投資。由於過去幾年來，總括來說，農作物產量因全球暖化而急遽的減少，所以，除當事人的經濟利益考量外，前述公共政策議題（譯註：例如，鼓勵創新、糧食供應的保障等）法院亦應該在此等案例上加以考量。

附註

1. Bowman v. Monsanto Company, 569 U. S. (2013), decided May 13, 2013. 譯註：該案是美國農民Vernon Bowman就美國聯邦巡迴上訴法院（the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit）的Bowman案判決（Bowman v. Monsanto Co., 657 F.3d 1341(Fed. Cir. 2011)）所提起的上訴。
2. 譯註：此技術授權契約如此的規定，等於剝奪了農民固有的留種權（Breeder's Rights），若農民仍然留種待下季種植，或者販賣給他人為如此目的，就會違約，而產生爭議。在基改種子專利與農民留種權發生衝突產生爭議的訴訟案件中，在決定受理本案之前，美國最高法院以往的選擇是並不介入聯邦巡迴上訴法院的判斷（例如，其曾拒絕受理農民Homan McFarling與Mitchell Scruggs與孟山都公司間專利訴訟案件所提起的上訴）。
3. 譯註：包曼透過買入公開市場上販售的商品黃豆，加以種植，而取得基改黃豆而留種，他就能以此程序複製基改黃豆種子而反覆種植使用。從此，包曼不再需要向孟山都購買基改黃豆種子，但如此行為並沒有違約留種，而他人也沒有違約販賣給包曼為如此的目的。因而，孟山都的營運模式就完全被破壞了，再也收不到錢了。

延伸閱讀：
孟山都案件的判決首次顯示 歐洲法院對基因序列專利範圍的侵權判定原則
基因改良專利 vs. 專利耗盡原則

Supreme Court Ｅndorses the GM-crop Business Model
Stefano John    NAIP  Education & Training Group / European Patent Attorney

The Supreme Court has delivered an emphatic decision (emphatic by it being a unanimous decision) in Bowman v. Monsanto Company, 569 U. S. (2013) that the doctrine of patent exhaustion "does not permit a farmer to reproduce patented seeds through planting and harvesting without the patent holder's permission."

Under the doctrine of patent exhaustion, the authorized sale of a patented article gives the purchaser, or any subsequent owner, a right to use or resell that article. Such a sale, however, does not allow the purchaser to make new copies of the patented invention.

Monsanto invented a genetic modification that enables soybean plants (GM soybean) to survive exposure to glyphosate, the active ingredient in many herbicides (including Monsanto's own Roundup^TM). Monsanto markets soybean seed containing this altered genetic material as Roundup Ready^TM seed. Farmers planting that seed can use a glyphosate based herbicide to kill weeds without damaging their crops. Monsanto sells, and allows other companies to sell, Roundup Ready^TM soybean seeds to growers who assent to a special licensing agreement. Under the agreement, the farmer may not save any of the harvested soybeans for replanting, nor may he supply them to anyone else for that purpose. Because glyphosate resistance comes from the seed's genetic material, that trait is passed on from the planted seed to the harvested soybeans. The agreement's terms prevent the farmer from co-opting that process to produce his own Roundup Ready^TM seeds, forcing him instead to buy from Monsanto each season.

Petitioner Vernon Bowman is a farmer in Indiana who used in the past the Monsanto product according to the license. He then purchased "commodity soybeans" (intended for human or animal consumption and not for planting) and planted them in his fields. Those soybeans came from prior harvests of other local farmers who used the Roundup Ready^TM soybean seed. In applying glyphosate based herbicide, Bowman couldn't ignore that the soybeans were the Roundup Ready^TM soybean seeds sold by Monsanto. Bowman saved the seed from that crop to use in his late-season planting the next year and years after without paying Monsanto the license and therein lied the problem for Monsanto.

Monsanto sued Bowman for infringing its patents on Roundup Ready^TM seed and Bowman raised patent exhaustion as a defense, arguing that Monsanto could not control his use of the soybeans because they were the subject of a prior authorized sale (from the commodity soybeans). It reasoned that patent exhaustion did not protect Bowman because he had "created a newly infringing article" and because Bowman could not "‘replicate' Monsanto's patented technology by planting it in the ground to create newly infringing genetic material, seeds, and plants."

GM crops are designed to produce better yields or more resistant crops. To produce a GM crop requires lots of money in research. Monsanto's business model is to produce GM crops through research and recoup the cost (and make a profit) for such products for the length of the patent right. The Supreme Court agreed with this business model, citing that patent rights should encourage innovation. Given that in the last few years, crop yields in general have been dramatically reduced by global warming, public policy issues may be at stake here as well as the financial interests of the parties involved.

Facebook 按讚馬上加入北美智權報粉絲團