A Texas court dismissed a rose breeder's plant-patent claim because it never alleged how its rivals asexually reproduced the patented varieties, spotlighting the unusual infringement element baked into 35 U.S.C. §§ 161-164.
A unanimous Supreme Court held that patent exhaustion does not let a farmer grow successive generations of a patented seed, because planting and harvesting creates new copies rather than merely using a purchased one.
The Supreme Court read the Plant Variety Protection Act's farmer exemption narrowly, holding that a grower may sell saved seed only in the amount needed to replant his own acreage.
The Supreme Court held that ordinary utility patents are available for plants, and that neither the Plant Patent Act nor the Plant Variety Protection Act is the exclusive route to protecting a new variety.
