Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Correspondence
  • Published:

Schmeiser versus Monsanto

Nature Biotechnology volume 22, pages 803–804 (2004)Cite this article

To the editor:

On Friday, May 21, 2004 in a 5:4 split decision, the Canadian Supreme Court upheld the decisions of both the Federal and Appeal courts, and confirmed the finding that Percy Schmieser, by knowingly growing glyphosate-resistant canola that was not purchased, had infringed Monsanto's (St. Louis, MO, USA) Canadian patent 1,313,830 (ref. 1). Despite media attempts to frame the case as a battle between David and Goliath—the lone farmer against big industry—I contend the case really was about David against David.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser, 2004 SCC 34; File No. 29437; May 21, (2004).

  2. Harvard College v. Canada (Commissioner of Patents), 2002 SCC 76; File No. 28155; December 5, (2002).

  3. Harvard College v. Canada (Commissioner of Patents), 2002 SCC 76; File No. 28155; December 5, (2002), para. [155].

  4. 12 C.P.R (4th) 204 (Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser; FCTD).

  5. Schmeiser, v. Monsanto Canada Inc. 2002 FCA 309; File No. A-367-01; September 4, (2002).

  6. Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser, 2004 SCC 34; File No. 29437; May 21, (2004); para. 42.

  7. The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. Off. J. Eur. Union. L171, 114 (1999).

  8. Ernst & Young . Resurgence: The Americas Perspective. Global Biotechnology Report 2004 (May 12, 2004).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP, 160 Elgin Street, Suite 2600, Ottawa, K1P 1C3, Ontario, Canada

    Konrad Sechley

Authors
  1. Konrad Sechley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sechley, K. Schmeiser versus Monsanto. Nat Biotechnol 22, 803–804 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0704-803c

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0704-803c

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing