Date: 08-04-2012
Case Style: Monsanto Co. v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.
Case Number: 09cv686
Judge: Richard Webber
Court: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (St. Louis County)
Plaintiff's Attorney: Mark G. Arnold, Joseph P. Conran, Dutro E. Campbell, Greg G. Gutzler, Steven M. Berezney, Omri E. Praiss, Tamara M. Spicer, Husch Blackwell, LLP, St. Louis, Missouri
Matthew A. Campbell, James M. Hilmert, Todd J. Ehlman, George C. Lombardi, Kurt A. Mathas, Eric J. Mersmann, Adam S. Nadelhaft, Peter E. Perkowski, John J. Rosenthal, Stephen R. Smerek, Andrew E. Smith, Zachary L. Spencer, Gail J. Standish, Erica E. Stauffer, Dan K. Webb, Jovial Wong, Winston and Strawn, LLP, Washington, D.C., Chicago, Illinois and Los Angeles, California
Steven G. Spears, McDermott and Will, Houston, Texas
Robert N. Weiner, Arnold and Porter, L.L.P., Washington, D.C.
Defendant's Attorney: Leora Ben-Ami, Thomas F. Fleming, Peter B. Silverman, David N. Draper, Howard S. Suh, Christopher T. Jagoe, Jeanna Wacker, Kirkland and Ellis, New York, New York
Oliver C. Bennett, Kaye Scholer, New York, New York
Cynthia M. Christian, Robert J. Dwyer, Donald L. Flexner, Robert M. Cooper, Christopher L. Hayes James P. Denvir, II, Amy J. Mauser, Elliott M. Seiden, Hershel Wancjer, Boies and Schiller, L.L.P., Orlando, Florida
C. David Goerisch, Andrew Rothschild, Lewis Rice, St. Louis, Missouri
Robert T. Haar, Lisa A. Pake, Haar and Woods, L.L.P., St. Louis, Missouri
Description: Monsanto Co. sued DuPont Co. on a patent infringement theory claiming that DuPont used genetic information developed by it for modified soybeans without permission or compensation. The beans in question are not affected by the weedkiller Roundup.
Monsanto argued that DuPont violated a licensing agreement and infringed the Roundup Ready patent when it began making soybeans that added the GAT trait. DuPont made the combination to patch problems with GAT, Monsanto said. DuPont argued that Monsanto deceived the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to obtain its patent, rendering it invalid and unenforceable.
Outcome: Plaintiff's verdict for $1 billion.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:
