Source: https://www.biotechblog.com/bowman-v-monsanto-intersection-of-the-exhaustion-doctrine-and-effective-protection-for-reinvented-articles/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 08:14:08+00:00

Document:
On February 19, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Bowman v. Monsanto – a case that pits the emotional pull of seed-saving vs. the potential to undercut innovation if farmers may save/buy/sell GM seed.
Vernon Hugh Bowman is a farmer who entered into an ongoing technology agreement for access to genetically modified soybeans known as Roundup Ready® soybeans and also used the soybeans without permission for his 2nd season planting dating back to 1999. Both Monsanto and the U.S. Government have confirmed that this case does not affect any farmers who find GM seeds accidentally growing in their fields, which appears to be unlikely, at least in the case of soybeans.
[T]he Exhaustion Doctrine was shaped with the idea of an article; there was an article that you could use and then you use it and its used up. But we haven’t applied the Exhaustion Doctrine when you have a new — when you create a copy of the original. So it’s — it’s not that we have law in place. We’ve been dealing with an item with the Exhaustion Doctrine and now we have hundreds of items, thousands of items, all growing from that original seed.
The U.S. Government and counsel for Monsanto cited Microsoft v. AT&T (2007), noting commonalities between digital replication of software and biotechnologies that may reproduce desirable genetic traits through successive generations. In response to a question from Chief Justice Roberts, Bowman’s counsel pointed out that the Court had found in favor of Microsoft, finding no infringement of AT&T patents due to extraterritorially.
Now with passage of time, though, the Court’s majority may find more sympathy with Justice Steven’s dissent in Microsoft, concluding that the Golden master disk represents both the core software component and the “functional equivalent to a warehouse of components,” – perfect digital copies of the original to be reproduced ad infinitum and without payment of royalties to the patent holder.
Disclosure: Through through the non-profit NGO BayhDole25, I submitted amicus briefs to the U.S. Supreme Court in both Bowman v. Monsanto and Microsoft v. AT&T (2007) supporting the patent holder in both cases. The BayhDole25 brief in Bowman v. Monsanto may be downloaded here, the BayhDole25 brief in Microsoft v. AT&T (2007) may be downloaded here.
My understanding is that the regulatory hurdles in Africa have been as much of a barrier for R&D as under-developed or undeveloped patent systems for GM technologies. I will give this some further thought and welcome other views.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.