Monsanto V. Schmeiser
In 1997, Percy Schmeiser found Monsanto's genetically modified “Roundup Ready Canola” plants growing near his farm. He testified that he sprayed his nearby field and found that much of the crop survived, meaning it was also Roundup Ready. He testified that he then harvested that crop, saved it separately from his other harvest, and intentionally planted it in 1998. Monsanto approached him to pay a license fee for using Monsanto's patented technology without a license. Schmeiser refused, claiming that the actual seed was his because it was grown on his land, and so Monsanto sued Schmeiser for patent infringement.
For the next several years, the case traveled through the Canadian court system. Meanwhile, Schmeiser became an international symbol and spokesperson for the movement against the genetic engineering of food. He accepted speaking engagements, and received donations for his defense fund, from around the world. Ultimately, a Supreme Court 5-4 ruling found partly in favor of Monsanto, because Schmeiser had intentionally replanted the seed that he had saved.
The publicity around the case focused on whether Monsanto would be held responsible for “genetic engineering crop contamination”. This issue was, in explicit fact, not considered by the courts. The patent infringement finding was based solely on the determination that Schmeiser had collected crossbred seeds, and then replanted and harvested them the next year. No punitive damages, costs of the technology use fee, or legal fees were awarded to Monsanto, as the Supreme Court also ruled 9-0 in Schmeiser's favor that his profits were exactly the same with or without the presence of the Roundup Ready Canola.
Read more about this topic: Percy Schmeiser