OCTOBER TERM, 2012

(Slip Opinion)

1

Syllabus
NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is
being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.
The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been
prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus

BOWMAN v. MONSANTO CO. ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
No. 11–796.

Argued February 19, 2013—Decided May 13, 2013

Respondent Monsanto invented and patented Roundup Ready soybean
seeds, which contain a genetic alteration that allows them to survive
exposure to the herbicide glyphosate. It sells the seeds subject to alicensing agreement that permits farmers to plant the purchased
seed in one, and only one, growing season. Growers may consume orsell the resulting crops, but may not save any of the harvested soybeans for replanting. Petitioner Bowman purchased Roundup Readysoybean seed for his first crop of each growing season from a company
associated with Monsanto and followed the terms of the licensing
agreement. But to reduce costs for his riskier late-season planting,Bowman purchased soybeans intended for consumption from a grain
elevator; planted them; treated the plants with glyphosate, killing allplants without the Roundup Ready trait; harvested the resulting
soybeans that contained that trait; and saved some of these harvested seeds to use in his late-season planting the next season. After discovering this practice, Monsanto sued Bowman for patent infringement. Bowman raised the defense of patent exhaustion, which gives
the purchaser of a patented article, or any subsequent owner, theright to use or resell that article. The District Court rejected Bowman’s defense and the Federal Circuit affirmed.
Held: Patent exhaustion does not permit a farmer to reproduce patented seeds through planting and harvesting without the patent holder’spermission. Pp. 4–10.
(a) Under the patent exhaustion doctrine, “the initial authorized
sale of a patented article terminates all patent rights to that item,”
Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 553 U. S. 617, 625,
and confers on the purchaser, or any subsequent owner, “the right touse [or] sell” the thing as he sees fit, United States v. Univis Lens Co.,

2

BOWMAN v. MONSANTO CO.
Syllabus
316 U. S. 241, 249–250. However, the doctrine restricts the patentee’s rights only as to the “particular article” sold, id., at 251; it leaves
untouched the patentee’s ability to prevent a buyer from making new
copies of the patented item. By planting and harvesting Monsanto’s
patented seeds, Bowman made additional copies of Monsanto’s patented invention, and his conduct thus falls outside the protections ofpatent exhaustion. Were this otherwise, Monsanto’s patent would
provide scant benefit. After Monsanto sold its first seed, other seed
companies could produce the patented seed to compete with Monsanto, and farmers would need to buy seed only once. Pp. 4–7.
(b) Bowman argues that exhaustion should apply here because heis using seeds in the normal way farmers do, and thus allowing Monsanto to interfere with that use would create an impermissible exception to the exhaustion doctrine for patented seeds. But it is really
Bowman who is asking for an exception to the well-settled rule thatexhaustion does not extend to the right to make new copies of the patented item. If Bowman was granted that exception, patents on
seeds would retain little value. Further, applying the normal rule
will allow farmers to make effective use of patented seeds. Bowman,
who purchased seeds intended for consumption, stands in a peculiarly poor position to argue that he cannot make effective use of his soybeans. Bowman conceded that he knew of no other farmer who
planted soybeans bought from a grain elevator. In the more ordinarycase, when a farmer purchases Roundup Ready seed from Monsantoor an affiliate, he will be able to plant it in accordance with Monsanto’s license to make one crop. Pp. 7–10.

657 F. 3d 1341, affirmed.
KAGAN, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

Cite as: 569 U. S. ____ (2013)

1

Opinion of the Court
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to
notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in orderthat corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES_________________

No. 11–796_________________VERNON HUGH BOWMAN, PETITIONER v.
MONSANTO COMPANY ET AL.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT[May 13, 2013]JUSTICE KAGAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
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 asale, however, does not allow the purchaser to make newcopies of the patented invention. The question in this caseis whether a farmer who buys patented seeds may reproduce them through planting and harvesting without thepatent holder’s permission. We hold that he may not.
I
Respondent Monsanto invented a genetic modificationthat enables soybean plants to survive exposure to glyphosate, the active ingredient in many herbicides (including
Monsanto’s own Roundup). Monsanto markets soybean seedcontaining this altered genetic material as Roundup Ready
seed. Farmers planting that seed can use a glyphosatebased herbicide to kill weeds without damaging their crops.
Two patents issued to Monsanto cover various aspectsof its Roundup Ready technology, including a seed incorporating the genetic alteration. See Supp. App. SA1–21(U. S. Patent Nos. 5,352,605 and RE39,247E); see also

2

BOWMAN v. MONSANTO CO.
Opinion of the Court

657 F. 3d 1341, 1343–1344 (CA Fed. 2011).
Monsanto sells, and allows other companies to sell,Roundup Ready soybean seeds to growers who assent to a
special licensing agreement. See App. 27a. That agreement permits a grower to plant the purchased seeds in one(and only one) season. He can then consume the resulting
crop or sell it as a commodity, usually to a grain elevatoror agricultural processor. See 657 F. 3d, at 1344–1345.
But 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. These restrictions
reflect the ease of producing new generations of Roundup
Ready seed. Because glyphosate resistance comes fromthe seed’s genetic material, that trait is passed on fromthe planted seed to the harvested soybeans: Indeed, asingle Roundup Ready seed can grow a plant containing
dozens of genetically identical beans, each of which, if
replanted, can grow another such plant—and so on and soon. See App. 100a. The agreement’s terms prevent thefarmer from co-opting that process to produce his own
Roundup Ready seeds, forcing him instead to buy from
Monsanto each season.
Petitioner Vernon Bowman is a farmer in Indiana who,
it is fair to say, appreciates Roundup Ready soybean seed.
He purchased Roundup Ready each year, from a company
affiliated with Monsanto, for his first crop of the season.
In accord with the agreement just described, he used all ofthat seed for planting, and sold his entire crop to a grain
elevator (which typically would resell it to an agriculturalprocessor for human or animal consumption).
Bowman, however, devised a less orthodox approach forhis second crop of each season. Because he thought suchlate-season planting “risky,” he did not want to pay thepremium price that Monsanto charges for Roundup Ready
seed. Id., at 78a; see Brief for Petitioner 6. He therefore
went to a grain elevator; purchased “commodity soybeans”

Cite as: 569 U. S. ____ (2013)

3

Opinion of the Court

intended for human or animal consumption; and planted
them in his fields.1 Those soybeans came from prior harvests of other local farmers. And because most of those
farmers also used Roundup Ready seed, Bowman could
anticipate that many of the purchased soybeans would
contain Monsanto’s patented technology. When he applieda glyphosate-based herbicide to his fields, he confirmedthat this was so; a significant proportion of the new plants
survived the treatment, and produced in their turn a newcrop of soybeans with the Roundup Ready trait. Bowman
saved seed from that crop to use in his late-season planting the next year—and then the next, and the next, until
he had harvested eight crops in that way. Each year, thatis, he planted saved seed from the year before (sometimes
adding more soybeans bought from the grain elevator),
sprayed his fields with glyphosate to kill weeds (and any
non-resistant plants), and produced a new crop of glyphosateresistant—i.e., Roundup Ready—soybeans.
After discovering this practice, Monsanto sued Bowman
for infringing its patents on Roundup Ready seed. 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 local farmers to the grain elevator). The District
Court rejected that argument, and awarded damages to
Monsanto of $84,456. The Federal Circuit affirmed. It
reasoned that patent exhaustion did not protect Bowman
because he had “created a newly infringing article.” 657
F. 3d, at 1348. The “right to use” a patented article follow——————
1 Grain elevators, as indicated above, purchase grain from farmers
and sell it for consumption; under federal and state law, they generally
cannot package or market their grain for use as agricultural seed. See
7 U. S. C. §1571; Ind. Code §15–15–1–32 (2012). But because soybeans
are themselves seeds, nothing (except, as we shall see, the law) prevented Bowman from planting, rather than consuming, the product hebought from the grain elevator.

4

BOWMAN v. MONSANTO CO.
Opinion of the Court

ing an authorized sale, the court explained, “does notinclude the right to construct an essentially new article on
the template of the original, for the right to make thearticle remains with the patentee.” Ibid. (brackets andinternal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, Bowman
could not “ ‘replicate’ Monsanto’s patented technology byplanting it in the ground to create newly infringing genetic
material, seeds, and plants.” Ibid.
We granted certiorari to consider the important question of patent law raised in this case, 568 U. S. ___ (2012),
and now affirm.
II
The doctrine of patent exhaustion limits a patentee’sright to control what others can do with an article embodying or containing an invention.2 Under the doctrine, “theinitial authorized sale of a patented item terminates all
patent rights to that item.” Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG
Electronics, Inc., 553 U. S. 617, 625 (2008). And by “exhaust[ing] the [patentee’s] monopoly” in that item, the saleconfers on the purchaser, or any subsequent owner, “theright to use [or] sell” the thing as he sees fit. UnitedStates v. Univis Lens Co., 316 U. S. 241, 249–250 (1942).
We have explained the basis for the doctrine as follows:“[T]he purpose of the patent law is fulfilled with respect toany particular article when the patentee has received his
reward . . . by the sale of the article”; once that “purpose isrealized the patent law affords no basis for restraining theuse and enjoyment of the thing sold.” Id., at 251.
Consistent with that rationale, the doctrine restricts apatentee’s rights only as to the “particular article” sold,
ibid.; it leaves untouched the patentee’s ability to prevent——————
2 The Patent Act grants a patentee the “right to exclude others frommaking, using, offering for sale, or selling the invention.” 35 U. S. C.
§154(a)(1); see §271(a) (“[W]hoever without authority makes, uses,
offers to sell, or sells any patented invention . . . infringes the patent”).

Cite as: 569 U. S. ____ (2013)

5

Opinion of the Court

a buyer from making new copies of the patented item.
“[T]he purchaser of the [patented] machine . . . does notacquire any right to construct another machine either for
his own use or to be vended to another.” Mitchell v.
Hawley, 16 Wall. 544, 548 (1873); see Wilbur-Ellis Co. v.
Kuther, 377 U. S. 422, 424 (1964) (holding that a purchaser’s “reconstruction” of a patented machine “would impinge on the patentee’s right ‘to exclude others from making’ . . . the article” (quoting 35 U. S. C. §154 (1964 ed.))).
Rather, “a second creation” of the patented item “call[s]the monopoly, conferred by the patent grant, into play fora second time.” Aro Mfg. Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co., 365 U. S. 336, 346 (1961). That is because thepatent holder has “received his reward” only for the actual
article sold, and not for subsequent recreations of it.
Univis, 316 U. S., at 251. If the purchaser of that article
could make and sell endless copies, the patent would
effectively protect the invention for just a single sale.
Bowman himself disputes none of this analysis as a general matter: He forthrightly acknowledges the “well settled” principle “that the exhaustion doctrine does notextend to the right to ‘make’ a new product.” Brief for
Petitioner 37 (citing Aro, 365 U. S., at 346).
Unfortunately for Bowman, that principle decides thiscase against him. Under the patent exhaustion doctrine,
Bowman could resell the patented soybeans he purchasedfrom the grain elevator; so too he could consume the beans
himself or feed them to his animals. Monsanto, although
the patent holder, would have no business interfering in
those 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

6

BOWMAN v. MONSANTO CO.
Opinion of the Court

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 theoriginal 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 more
specifically, “plant and raise (a crop)”). Because Bowman
thus reproduced Monsanto’s patented invention, the exhaustion doctrine does not protect him.3
Were the matter otherwise, Monsanto’s patent would
provide scant benefit. After inventing the Roundup Ready
trait, Monsanto would, to be sure, “receiv[e] [its] reward”
for the first seeds it sells. Univis, 316 U. S., at 251. But
in short order, other seed companies could reproduce theproduct and market it to growers, thus depriving Monsanto of its monopoly. And farmers themselves need only
buy the seed once, whether from Monsanto, a competitor,or (as here) a grain elevator. The grower could multiply
his initial purchase, and then multiply that new creation,
ad infinitum—each time profiting from the patented seed
without compensating its inventor. Bowman’s late-season
plantings offer a prime illustration. After buying beans
for a single harvest, Bowman saved enough seed each year
to reduce or eliminate the need for additional purchases.
——————
3 This conclusion applies however Bowman acquired Roundup Ready
seed: The doctrine of patent exhaustion no more protected Bowman’s
reproduction of the seed he purchased for his first crop (from a Monsantoaffiliated seed company) than the beans he bought for his second(from a grain elevator). The difference between the two purchases wasthat the first—but not the second—came with a license from Monsantoto plant the seed and then harvest and market one crop of beans. We
do not here confront a case in which Monsanto (or an affiliated seed
company) sold Roundup Ready to a farmer without an express license
agreement. For reasons we explain below, we think that case unlikely
to arise. See infra, at 9. And in the event it did, the farmer mightreasonably claim that the sale came with an implied license to plantand harvest one soybean crop.

Cite as: 569 U. S. ____ (2013)

7

Opinion of the Court

Monsanto still held its patent, but received no gain from
Bowman’s annual production and sale of Roundup Readysoybeans. The exhaustion doctrine is limited to the “particular item” sold to avoid just such a mismatch between
invention and reward.
Our holding today also follows from J. E. M. Ag Supply,
Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred Int’l, Inc., 534 U. S. 124 (2001).
We considered there whether an inventor could get apatent on a seed or plant, or only a certificate issued under
the Plant Variety Protection Act (PVPA), 7 U. S. C. §2321
et seq. We decided a patent was available, rejecting theclaim that the PVPA implicitly repealed the Patent Act’s
coverage of seeds and plants. On our view, the two statutes established different, but not conflicting schemes:
The requirements for getting a patent “are more stringent
than those for obtaining a PVP certificate, and the protections afforded” by a patent are correspondingly greater.
J. E. M., 534 U. S., at 142. Most notable here, we explained that only a patent holder (not a certificate holder)
could prohibit “[a] farmer who legally purchases andplants” a protected seed from saving harvested seed “forreplanting.” Id., at 140; see id., at 143 (noting that the
Patent Act, unlike the PVPA, contains “no exemptio[n]” for“saving seed”). That statement is inconsistent with applying exhaustion to protect conduct like Bowman’s. If a sale
cut off the right to control a patented seed’s progeny, then(contrary to J. E. M.) the patentee could not prevent thebuyer from saving harvested seed. Indeed, the patentee
could not stop the buyer from selling such seed, whicheven a PVP certificate owner (who, recall, is supposed tohave fewer rights) can usually accomplish. See 7 U. S. C.
§§2541, 2543. Those limitations would turn upside-down
the statutory scheme J. E. M. described.
Bowman principally argues that exhaustion should
apply here because seeds are meant to be planted. The
exhaustion doctrine, he reminds us, typically prevents a

8

BOWMAN v. MONSANTO CO.
Opinion of the Court

patentee from controlling the use of a patented productfollowing an authorized sale. And in planting Roundup
Ready seeds, Bowman continues, he is merely using themin the normal way farmers do. Bowman thus concludes
that allowing Monsanto to interfere with that use would“creat[e] an impermissible exception to the exhaustion
doctrine” for patented seeds and other “self-replicating
technologies.” Brief for Petitioner 16.
But it is really Bowman who is asking for an unprecedented exception—to what he concedes is the “well settled”
rule that “the exhaustion doctrine does not extend to theright to ‘make’ a new product.” See supra, at 5. Reproducing a patented article no doubt “uses” it after a fashion.
But as already explained, we have always drawn theboundaries of the exhaustion doctrine to exclude that
activity, so that the patentee retains an undiminishedright to prohibit others from making the thing his patent
protects. See, e.g., Cotton-Tie Co. v. Simmons, 106 U. S.
89, 93–94 (1882) (holding that a purchaser could not “use”
the buckle from a patented cotton-bale tie to “make” a newtie). That is because, once again, if simple copying were a
protected use, a patent would plummet in value after the
first sale of the first item containing the invention. The
undiluted patent monopoly, it might be said, would extend
not for 20 years (as the Patent Act promises), but for only
one transaction. And that would result in less incentive
for innovation than Congress wanted. Hence our repeatedinsistence that exhaustion applies only to the particular
item sold, and not to reproductions.
Nor do we think that rule will prevent farmers frommaking appropriate use of the Roundup Ready seed theybuy. Bowman himself stands in a peculiarly poor position
to assert such a claim. As noted earlier, the commodity
soybeans he purchased were intended not for planting, but
for consumption. See supra, at 2–3. Indeed, Bowman
conceded in deposition testimony that he knew of no otherCite as: 569 U. S. ____ (2013)

9

Opinion of the Court

farmer who employed beans bought from a grain elevator
to grow a new crop. See App. 84a. So a non-replicating
use of the commodity beans at issue here was not justavailable, but standard fare. And in the more ordinarycase, when a farmer purchases Roundup Ready seed qua
seed—that is, seed intended to grow a crop—he will beable to plant it. Monsanto, to be sure, conditions thefarmer’s ability to reproduce Roundup Ready; but it does
not—could not realistically—preclude all planting. No
sane farmer, after all, would buy the product withoutsome ability to grow soybeans from it. And so Monsanto,
predictably enough, sells Roundup Ready seed to farmers
with a license to use it to make a crop. See supra, at 2, 6,
n. 3. Applying our usual rule in this context therefore willallow farmers to benefit from Roundup Ready, even as it
rewards Monsanto for its innovation.
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 ofMonsanto’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 “overthe 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 harvest
crops from Roundup Ready seeds without paying the usual
premium. He purchased beans from a grain elevator
anticipating that many would be Roundup Ready; applieda 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10

BOWMAN v. MONSANTO CO.
Opinion of the Court

Roundup Ready beans at a chosen time; tended and treatedthem, including by exploiting their patented glyphosateresistance; and harvested many more seeds, which heeither 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 eighth
generation) of Monsanto’s patented invention.
Our holding today is limited—addressing the situation before us, rather than every one involving a selfreplicating product. We recognize that such inventions
are becoming ever more prevalent, complex, and diverse.
In another case, the article’s self-replication might occur
outside the purchaser’s control. Or it might be a necessary
but incidental step in using the item for another purpose.
Cf. 17 U. S. C. §117(a)(1) (“[I]t is not [a copyright] infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program
to make . . . another copy or adaptation of that computer
program provide[d] that such a new copy or adaptation iscreated as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program”). We need not address here whether or
how the doctrine of patent exhaustion would apply in suchcircumstances. In the case at hand, Bowman planted
Monsanto’s patented soybeans solely to make and market
replicas of them, thus depriving the company of the reward patent law provides for the sale of each article.
Patent exhaustion provides no haven for that conduct. We
accordingly affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit.
It is so ordered.