Case law analysis. Monsanto v schmeiser: A landmark decision concerning farmer liability and transgenic contamination

Journal of Environmental Law

Volumn 17, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 83-108

  Cullet, Philippe ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION; LIABILITY; TRANSGENIC PLANT;

EID: 26844513715     PISSN: 09528873     EISSN: 1464374X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/envlaw/eqi004     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Monsanto Canada Inc v Schmeiser, Supreme Court of Canada, Judgment of 21 May 2004, 2004 SCC 34 at 6§ [hereafter Monsanto v Schmeiser.
2. Monsanto v Schmeiser, supra n i at 3§.
3. Harvard College v Canada (Commissioner of Patents), 5 December 2002, Supreme Court of Canada [2002] 4 SCR 45, 2002 SCC 76.
4. Monsanto v Schmeiser, supra n 1 at 2§4.
5. Monsanto v Schmeiser, supra n 1 at 4§3.
6. However, this does not imply that the patent holder is deprived of protection where there is no commercial exploitation.
7. Monsanto v Schmeiser, supra n 1 at 5§6.
8. Monsanto v Schmeiser, supra n 1 at 7§1.
9. Monsanto v Schmeiser, 29 March 2001, 2001 FCT 256 at 9§2.
10. Monsanto v Schmeiser, supra n 1 at 1§00.
11. See Article 27 (3) (b) of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, Marrakech, 15 April 1994, 33 ILM 1197 (1994).
12. Cf Novartis/Transgenic Plant, Case G01/98, European Patent Office (Enlarged Bd App), Decision of 20 December 1999 [2000] EPO Reports 303 where the patenting prohibition for plant varieties was discussed.
13. See e.g. Canadian Regulatory Directive Dir94-08: Assessment Criteria for Determining Environmental Safety of Plants with Novel Traits.
14. This goes beyond and is not related to the decision allowing Monsanto to commercialise Roundup Ready Canola.
15. Article 30 of the Swiss Federal Law relating to Non-Human Gene Technology, 21 March 2003, Recueil systématique 814.91.
16. See e.g. Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission, GM Crops: Coexistence and Liability (London: Biotechnology Commission, 2003).
17. See e.g. Monsanto v McFarling, United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, 23 August 2002, 302 F3d 1291.