Organic Seed Growers & Trade Ass'n v. Monsanto Co., 851 F. Supp. 2d 544

Plaintiffs seek declaratory judgments that they do not infringe Monsanto patents, and that the patents are invalid or unenforceable, with no remedies due to plaintiffs.
Defendants manufacture and sell transgenic Roundup Ready seeds and related glyphosate-tolerant technologies under various patents.
Growers license the seeds for a single crop; second-generation seeds and seeds beyond authorized channels are not licensed.
Contamination and inadvertent presence of patented traits in non-transgenic crops are possible but no plaintiff asserts infringement or sale of patented seeds.
Organic certification is process-based and a residue of a patented trait does not automatically violate organic rules.
Plaintiffs filed the FAC, and defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; subsequently defendants reiterated positions denying a blanket covenant not to sue.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether there is subject-matter jurisdiction under the Declaratory Judgment Act.	Plaintiffs contend there is an ongoing controversy due to threats and patterns of enforcement.	Defendants argue there is no concrete injury or imminent controversy requiring relief.	No jurisdiction; controversy not sufficiently immediate or real.
Whether defendants’ past patent litigation against non-plaintiffs creates an implied controversy.	Past suits against dissimilar parties show ongoing enforcement against others.	Those suits are not directed at plaintiffs and do not establish a likely threat to plaintiffs.	Insufficient to establish jurisdiction.
Whether defendants’ implicit threat and covenant-not-to-sue communications create an injury-in-fact.	Statements imply potential suits against plaintiffs or others in the future.	The statements are non-threatening and simply reflect policy not to sue inadvertent infringers.	No imminent injury; statements do not create jurisdiction.
Whether plaintiffs’ preparatory conduct or potential future contamination supports immediacy.	Transgenic traits may spread and cause infringement in the near term.	Plaintiffs have not engaged in potentially infringing activity and contamination is not certain or imminent.	Lack of concrete, imminent potential infringement defeats jurisdiction.

Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, 653 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (establishes substantial controversy test for DJ jurisdiction)
MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118 (S. Ct. 2007) (establishes real-and-immediate controversy requirement)
SanDisk Corp. v. STMicroelectronics, Inc., 480 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (requires an injury in fact traceable to the patentee)
Cat Tech LLC v. TubeMaster, Inc., 528 F.3d 871 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (immediacy and certainty of infringing activity affect jurisdiction)
Prasco, LLC v. Medicis Pharm. Corp., 537 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (no jurisdiction if no imminent threat and actions by patentee are uncertain)
Innovative Therapies, Inc. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 599 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir.) (prior litigious conduct considered but not dispositive for DJ standing)
Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Acceleron LLC, 587 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (objective words and actions of patentee govern standing)
Creative Compounds, LLC v. Starmark Labs., 651 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (totality of circumstances required; potential injury must be supported by actions)
Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 130 S. Ct. 2705 (S. Ct. 2010) (treatment of cases challenging government action contrasted with patent DJ)
Aetna Life Insurance Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 (U.S. 1937) (illustrates lack of automatic standing absent present right)