Organic Seed Growers and Trade v. Monsanto Company, 718 F.3d 1350

Appellants, a coalition of farmers, seed sellers, and agricultural organizations, sought declaratory judgments of non-infringement and invalidity for 23 Monsanto patents; the district court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Monsanto has binding assurances it will not sue growers whose crops might inadvertently contain traces of Monsanto biotech genes, and appellants allege potential contamination could expose them to infringement suits.
The patents relate to technologies for genetically modifying seeds, including Roundup Ready glyphosate-resistant traits used in crops like soybeans and corn.
Monsanto enforces its patent rights against unauthorized planting or replanting of its genetically modified seeds, with numerous past suits and settlements.
Appellants are conventional seed users, some organic, who fear contamination could lead to patent infringement claims and thus take precautions or refrain from certain crops.
Monsanto publicly stated it would not exercise patent rights where trace amounts occur due to inadvertent means, and the court discusses the scope and effect of those assurances.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether there is an actual controversy with Article III standing given Monsanto's assurances	Organic Seed Growers claims risk of suit and chilling effect from contamination.	Monsanto argues no injury possible; assurances moot the dispute.	No Article III controversy; standing lacking.
Whether Monsanto's assurances can bind as judicial estoppel to moot the dispute	Representations create binding assurances that remove any real threat of suit.	Statements are not a covenant but effectively remove risk; estoppel could apply.	Representations function as binding, supporting dismissal; potential estoppel applies.
Scope of Monsanto's assurances and whether they cover all conduct	Assurances should cover any inadvertent use or sale of trace amounts.	Scope is limited to trace amounts; not blanket coverage.	Disclaimers limited to trace amounts; still no controversy here.
Whether a lack of concrete plans to engage in infringing activity defeats jurisdiction	Past conduct of Monsanto and potential future harm create controversy.	No concrete plans shown to engage in infringing activity.	No concrete plans; no imminent infringement risk.
Whether alleged chilling effects from Monsanto's refusal to provide a blanket covenant are cognizable	Chilling effects constitute injury supporting standing.	Subjective fear cannot substitute for actual injury.	Chilling effects alone do not establish standing; not enough.

Bowman v. Monsanto Co., 133 S. Ct. 1761 (2013) (patent exhaustion and self-replication limitations in seed use)
MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118 (U.S. 2007) (grounds for declaratory judgment jurisdiction based on actual controversy)
Already, LLC v. Nike, 133 S. Ct. 721 (U.S. 2013) (covenant not to sue can moot a declaratory judgment claim)
SanDisk Corp. v. STMicroelectronics, Inc., 480 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (considerations for declaratory judgment jurisdiction in patent context)
Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 133 S. Ct. 1138 (U.S. 2013) (standing requires substantial risk of harm; cannot be based on mere fear)
Geertson Seed Farms v. Geertson Seed Farms, 130 S. Ct. 2743 (U.S. 2010) (standing and gene flow considerations in regulatory challenges)
New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742 (U.S. 2001) (elements of standing and injury requirements)
Arkema Inc. v. Honeywell Int’l, Inc., 706 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (concrete plans and unfair advantage considerations in declaratory judgments)
Cat Tech LLC v. Tubemaster, Inc., 528 F.3d 871 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (need for significant, concrete steps to infringing activity)
Prasco, LLC v. Medicis Pharm. Corp., 537 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (considerations for prior positions in declaratory judgment contexts)