Unfortunately for Bowman, that principle decides this case against him. Under the patent exhaustion doctrine,Bowman could resell the patented soybeans he purchased from the grain elevator; so too he could consume the beanshimself or feed them to his animals. Monsanto, althoughthe patent holder, would have no business interfering inthose uses of Roundup Ready beans. But the exhaustion doctrine does not enable Bowman to make additional patented soybeans without Monsanto’s permission (either express or implied). And that is precisely what Bowman did. He took the soybeans he purchased home; planted them in his fields at the time he thought best; applied glyphosate to kill weeds (as well as any soy plants lacking the Roundup Ready trait); and finally harvested more (many more) beans than he started with. That is how “to ‘make’ a new product,” to use Bowman’s words, when the original product is a seed. Brief for Petitioner 37; see Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 1363 (1961) (“make” means “cause to exist, occur, or appear,” or morespecifically, “plant and raise (a crop)”). Because Bowman thus reproduced Monsanto’s patented invention, the exhaustion doctrine does not protect him.
Still, Bowman has another seeds-are-special argument: that soybeans naturally “self-replicate or ‘sprout’ unlessstored in a controlled manner,” and thus “it was the planted soybean, not Bowman” himself, that made replicas of Monsanto’s patented invention. Brief for Petitioner 42; see Tr. of Oral Arg. 14 (“[F]armers, when they plant seeds, they don’t exercise any control . . . over their crop” or “over the creative process”). But we think that blame-the-bean defense tough to credit. Bowman was not a passive observer of his soybeans’ multiplication; or put another way,the seeds he purchased (miraculous though they might bein other respects) did not spontaneously create eight successive soybean crops. As we have explained, supra at 2–3, Bowman devised and executed a novel way to harvestcrops from Roundup Ready seeds without paying the usualpremium. He purchased beans from a grain elevator anticipating that many would be Roundup Ready; applied a glyphosate-based herbicide in a way that culled any plants without the patented trait; and saved beans fromthe rest for the next season. He then planted those Roundup Ready beans at a chosen time; tended and treated them, including by exploiting their patented glyphosateresistance; and harvested many more seeds, which he either marketed or saved to begin the next cycle. In all this, the bean surely figured. But it was Bowman, and not the bean, who controlled the reproduction (unto the eighthgeneration) of Monsanto’s patented invention.
〒541－0041
Bowman v. Monsanto Company (Supreme Court 2013)
・上告棄却
・特許権の消尽論（用尽論）、再生産、遺伝子組換え
（経緯）
被上告人であるMonsanto社は、同社の除草剤「ラウンドアップ」に耐性を有する遺伝子組み換え大豆（ラウンドアップレディ技術）に関する２件の特許権を有していた(U. S. Patent Nos. 5,352,605、RE39,247E)。
また、Monsanto社は、当該特許権に基づき、1シーズンに1度しか利用できず、種まき用での転売や研究・品種改良、種子生産に利用することを禁じたライセンス契約を結ぶことを条件に、ラウンドアップレディ大豆の種子を農家に販売していた。
一方、上告人であるBowman氏は、Monsanto社から当該遺伝子組換え大豆の種子を購入して、遺伝子組換え大豆の生産を行っていた。Bowman氏は、ライセンス契約に従い、将来の栽培用に種子を取っておくことはしていなかったが、そのシーズンの２度目の栽培の際には、カントリーエレベータ（作物が集積される貯蔵施設）から購入した一般種を用いていた。
カントリーエレベータは地元の農家たちが種子を売買する交換所でもあり、その地域では９０％以上の大豆がラウンドアップレディ大豆であった。また、Bowman氏は、２度目の栽培で収穫した種子を一部とっておき、翌年以降の２度目の栽培の際に使用した。
Monsanto社は、Bowman氏がカントリーエレベータから購入した一般種を用いて２度目の栽培を行い、また翌年以降の栽培にも用いる行為が自社の特許権を侵害するものであるとして、Bowman氏に損害賠償を求める訴えを提起した。
一審の地裁はMonsanto社の主張を認め、Bowman氏に対し損害賠償をするよう命じた。これに不服のBowman氏はCAFCに上訴したが、CAFCも地裁の判断を認容した。
本件は、CAFCの判決に不服のBowman氏がその取消を求めて最高裁に上告したものである。
（争点）
特許された種子を購入している農家が、特許権者の許諾を得ることなく作付けし収穫することにより再生産することができるか否か。
（最高裁の判断）
Bowman氏は、農家が行う通常の方法で種子を使用しているのであり、消尽論が適用されるべきであると主張した。また、そのような使用をMonsanto社により差し止めることを認めれば、特許に係る種子の消尽論に関し許容できない例外を作ることになるとも主張した。
しかし最高裁は、消尽論によっても、Bowman氏はMonsanto社の許可なく（それが明示的であると黙示的であるとを問わず）、追加的に、特許に係る大豆を生産することは許されない、と判示した。
また、最高裁は、当初よりも多くの量の種子を最終的に収穫しているなどと指摘した上で、Bowman氏はMonsanto社の特許発明を再生産しているので、消尽論により同氏は保護されないと判示した。
Unfortunately for Bowman, that principle decides this case against him. Under the patent exhaustion doctrine,Bowman could resell the patented soybeans he purchased from the grain elevator; so too he could consume the beanshimself or feed them to his animals. Monsanto, althoughthe patent holder, would have no business interfering inthose uses of Roundup Ready beans. But the exhaustion doctrine does not enable Bowman to make additional patented soybeans without Monsanto’s permission (either express or implied). And that is precisely what Bowman did. He took the soybeans he purchased home; planted them in his fields at the time he thought best; applied glyphosate to kill weeds (as well as any soy plants lacking the Roundup Ready trait); and finally harvested more (many more) beans than he started with. That is how “to ‘make’ a new product,” to use Bowman’s words, when the original product is a seed. Brief for Petitioner 37; see Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 1363 (1961) (“make” means “cause to exist, occur, or appear,” or morespecifically, “plant and raise (a crop)”). Because Bowman thus reproduced Monsanto’s patented invention, the exhaustion doctrine does not protect him.
Bowman氏は、大豆は自然に自己複製し、又は成長したのであり、コントロールした方法で蓄えられたものではない、従って、Monsanto社の特許発明を複製したのは、Bowman氏自身ではなく、植えられた大豆であると主張した。
しかし最高裁は、Bowman氏は受動的な傍観者ではなく、ランドアップレディ種子から収穫するために新規の方法を考案し実行していた等と指摘。Monsanto社の特許発明の再生産（8世代まで）をコントロールしたのはBowman氏であり、大豆ではないと判断した。
Still, Bowman has another seeds-are-special argument: that soybeans naturally “self-replicate or ‘sprout’ unlessstored in a controlled manner,” and thus “it was the planted soybean, not Bowman” himself, that made replicas of Monsanto’s patented invention. Brief for Petitioner 42; see Tr. of Oral Arg. 14 (“[F]armers, when they plant seeds, they don’t exercise any control . . . over their crop” or “over the creative process”). But we think that blame-the-bean defense tough to credit. Bowman was not a passive observer of his soybeans’ multiplication; or put another way,the seeds he purchased (miraculous though they might bein other respects) did not spontaneously create eight successive soybean crops. As we have explained, supra at 2–3, Bowman devised and executed a novel way to harvestcrops from Roundup Ready seeds without paying the usualpremium. He purchased beans from a grain elevator anticipating that many would be Roundup Ready; applied a glyphosate-based herbicide in a way that culled any plants without the patented trait; and saved beans fromthe rest for the next season. He then planted those Roundup Ready beans at a chosen time; tended and treated them, including by exploiting their patented glyphosateresistance; and harvested many more seeds, which he either marketed or saved to begin the next cycle. In all this, the bean surely figured. But it was Bowman, and not the bean, who controlled the reproduction (unto the eighthgeneration) of Monsanto’s patented invention.
結論として、最高裁はBowman氏の主張を棄却し、CAFCの判断を認容した。
（判決文） http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-796_c07d.pdf