proponent of transgenic seed and holds many patents relating thereto that it has aggressivelyasserted against literally hundreds of farmers, including those farmers who became contaminatedby Monsanto's transgenic seed through no fault of their own. Public awareness of Monsanto'spatent assertion activities is high and it contributes mightily to Plaintiffs' fears that they, too,could most assuredly be accused of patent infringement in the near future if and when theybecome contaminated by Monsanto's transgenic seed.4. Through this action, Plaintiffs ask the Court to declare that, should they ever becontaminated by Monsanto's transgenic seed, they need not fear being sued for patentinfringement. As set forth below, there are several legal bases for this declaration, the principalone of which is that patents on transgenic seed fail to satisfy the requirement of both theConstitution and the Patent Act that only technology with a beneficial societal use may bepatented. U. S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 8 (“To promote the Progress of Science and
useful
Arts”)(emphasis added); 35 U.S.C. § 101 (“Whoever invents or discovers any new and
useful
process,machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and
useful
improvement thereof,may obtain a patent therefor”) (emphasis added). As Justice Story wrote in 1817, to bepatentable, an invention must not be “injurious to the wellbeing, good policy, or sound morals of society,” and “a new invention to poison people ... is not a patentable invention.”
Lowell v. Lewis
,15 F. Cas. 1018 (C.C.D. Mass. 1817). Because transgenic seed, and in particular Monsanto'stransgenic seed, is “injurious to the wellbeing, good policy, or sound morals of society” andthreatens to “poison people,” Monsanto's transgenic seed patents are all invalid.5. Monsanto's patents are additionally invalid for other failures to meet the3
Case 1:11-cv-02163-NRB Document 1 Filed 03/29/11 Page 3 of 52