Patents | Published:

Monsanto Technology LLC v. Cargill: a matter of construction

Nature Biotechnology volume 26, pages 289291 (2008) | Download Citation

For the first time, a genetically modified plant patent is litigated in the United Kingdom's High Court.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.


  1. 1.

    Monsanto Technology LLC v. Cargill International SA and Cargill plc (2007) EWHC 2257 (Pat.).

  2. 2.

    Monsanto applied to amend the patent a few weeks before the trial to restrict its scope only to the commercial embodiment of the invention.

  3. 3.

    Monsanto used the term “Class II” to describe those enzymes that could be identified through homology testing with other EPSPS enzymes as being part of its invention.

  4. 4.

    This application was made via a “revalidation” route.

  5. 5.

    These two sequences corresponded to the CP4 and PG2982 EPSPS enzyme amino acid sequences, respectively.

  6. 6.

    See Novartis AG v. Ivax Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd. (2007) EWCA Civ. 971.

  7. 7.

    See also Kirin-Amgen v. Hoechst (2004) UKHL 46.

  8. 8.

    Infringement was therefore claimed under section 60(1)(c) of the UK Patents Act 1977 as amended.

  9. 9.

    See Pioneer v. Warner (1997) RPC 759.

Download references

Author information


  1. Simon Cohen and Gareth Morgan are patent lawyers at Taylor Wessing LLP, Carmelite, 50 Victoria Embankment, Blackfriars, London EC4Y 0DX, United Kingdom.;

    • Simon Cohen
    •  & Gareth Morgan


  1. Search for Simon Cohen in:

  2. Search for Gareth Morgan in:

Competing interests

The authors are employed by Taylor Wessing LLP, which acted for Cargill in defending Monsanto's claim for patent infringement.

About this article

Publication history



Further reading

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