Monsanto Co. v. Scruggs
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130897
N.D. Miss.2012Background
- Monsanto sued Mitchell Scruggs and Scruggs Farm Supply, LLC for patent infringement of Roundup Ready and Bollgard seeds; jury awarded Monsanto $8.9 million in 2010.
- The court granted post-trial relief requests in August 2012, including new trial, remittitur, treble damages, and attorney’s fees considerations, acknowledging absence of a trial transcript.
- Judge Pepper’s death left the court to review the post-trial record on a written record without trial‑witness testimony, prompting deference to Judge Pepper’s rulings.
- The court found the $8.9 million compensatory damages within the upper range of reasonable awards and noted Scruggs’ actions, including selling infringing seeds at approximately $9.50 per bag, were not the most egregious conduct.
- The primary issue was whether Scruggs’ conduct warranted treble damages or attorney’s fees under 35 U.S.C. § 284 and § 285, considering evolving seed-patent law at the time and Bard v. Gore, which redefined willfulness analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Should treble damages and/or attorneys’ fees be awarded? | Monsanto seeks up to triple damages and fees for willful infringement. | Scruggs argues against enhanced damages given evolving legal standards and lack of egregious conduct. | No; treble damages and attorney’s fees denied. |
| Is the willfulness finding to be retained or set aside? | Willfulness supports enhanced damages. | Contextual legal uncertainty negates objective recklessness. | Willfulness finding set aside under Bard v. Gore. |
| Should the corporate veil or personal liability of Scruggs be pierced? | Judgment should attach to both Scruggs and Scruggs Farm Supply, LLC. | Liability contested; corporate veil issues require further briefing. | Await further briefing; court undecided on piercing. |
| Did the Amended Verdict Form error warrant altering the judgment? | Language linking damages to both entities supports aggregate liability. | Error raised too late; no clear legal basis to alter verdict now. | Issue reserved for additional briefing; not decided here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Read Corp. v. Portec, Inc., 970 F.2d 816 (Fed.Cir.1992) (factors for aggravating/mitigating considerations in enhanced damages)
- Jurgens v. CBK, Ltd., 80 F.3d 1566 (Fed.Cir.1996) (two-step test for enhanced damages; link between willfulness and overall assessment)
- Seagate Technology, LLC v. In re Seagate, 497 F.3d 1369 (Fed.Cir.2007) (two-prong test for willful infringement; objective recklessness + knowledge/obviousness)
- Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc., 682 F.3d 1003 (Fed.Cir.2012) (threshold objective prong of willfulness is a question of law; supports de novo review on that prong)
- Monsanto Co. v. McFarling, 2005 WL 1490051 (E.D.Mo.2005) (denial of treble damages in seed-saving context; context matters when law unsettled)