By Tanner Murray. Tanner is a 2L at Arizona State University Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law, as well as a McCarthy Institute Fellow.
- Introduction
The ongoing litigation between Corteva Agriscience LLC and Inari Agriculture, Inc. illustrates the tension among the fields of patent law, plant variety protection, and international biotechnical competition as they converge in a single dispute. Corteva, a dominant player in the agriscience industry, has accused Inari of unlawfully obtaining, exporting, and modifying its patented seed technology for commercial purposes. Corteva Agriscience LLC v. Inari Agric., Inc., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137823, at 2. The lawsuit alleges that Inari’s actions constitute infringement of both Corteva’s utility patents and its Plant Variety Protection Act (PVPA) certificates. Id. The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Plant Variety Protection Office (PVPO) grants breeders intellectual property rights through plant variety protection certificates. These certificates safeguard newly developed varieties of seeds, tubers, and plants reproduced asexually, offering protection lasting twenty years, or twenty-five years in the case of trees and vines. Inari, in its defense, argues that Corteva is leveraging litigation to stifle competition by selectively enforcing its intellectual property rights while engaging in similar practices itself. Christopher Yasiejko, Inari Says Corteva Using Seed-Patent Suit to Stifle Competition, Bloomberg Law (Dec. 5, 2024, 11:38 AM), https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/inari-says-corteva-using-seed-patent-suit-to-stifle-competition.
This dispute raises fundamental questions about the scope of patent protection over biological materials, the enforceability of material transfer agreements, and the role of publicly accessible seed deposits in both patent disclosure and fair competition. Corteva Agriscience LLC, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137823, at 5–6. The court’s decision to deny Inari’s motion to dismiss suggests that the mere availability of seeds in a public repository does not automatically strip the patent owner of its rights. Id. This analysis will examine the legal arguments presented by both parties, the court’s reasoning in denying Inari’s motion to dismiss, and the broader implications for patent and competition law in the agricultural sector.
- Factual Background
Corteva and Inari are both engaged in the development of genetically modified crops. Id. at 3–4. Corteva, a company with a long history in agriscience, has invested billions of dollars in research and development to create high-quality crop seeds. Id. at 4. To protect its innovations, Corteva obtains utility patents and PVPA certificates while restricting the use of its seeds through licensing agreements. Id. at 5–6. One such patent at issue in this case, U.S. Patent No. 8,575,434, covers a specific genetically modified maize variety that includes an insect-resistance trait. Id. at 6. Additionally, Corteva holds over 200 PVPA certificates for other plant varieties. Id.
According to Corteva’s complaint, Inari acquired Corteva’s patented seeds through the American Type Culture Collection, a public repository where Corteva had deposited its seeds as part of the patent disclosure process. Id. at 7. These deposits were made in compliance with legal requirements under the Budapest Treaty, which ensures that biological material necessary for the implementation of a patent is made available to the public. Id. at 8. Corteva contends that when Inari obtained these seeds, it did so under an MTA that explicitly prohibited commercial use. Id. However, Inari allegedly circumvented these restrictions by first acquiring the seeds in the United States, shipping them to its facilities abroad, and using them to develop genetically modified strains for commercial sale. Id. at 9.
- Corteva’s Legal Claims
Corteva’s lawsuit asserts multiple claims against Inari, including direct infringement of its utility patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), contributory infringement under § 271(f)(2), and violation of the PVPA under 7 U.S.C. § 2541(a). Id. at 10–11. Additionally, Corteva argues that Inari breached the MTA by engaging in commercial use of the seeds, committed unfair competition under Massachusetts law, and converted its proprietary materials. Id. at 12.
In its patent infringement claims, Corteva asserts that Inari’s acquisition and export of the patented seeds constitute unauthorized use, particularly because Inari’s actions allegedly extended beyond mere possession and into active modification and commercialization of the protected genetic traits. Id. at 13. With respect to the PVPA claims, Corteva argues that the statute expressly prohibits the unauthorized delivery, shipping, and transfer of protected seeds. Id. at 14. The company also emphasizes that even if the seeds were publicly deposited, that does not equate to a blanket license for competitors to exploit them commercially. Id.
- Inari’s Defense and Motion to Dismiss
Inari moved to dismiss Corteva’s claims on several grounds. Id. at 15. The company’s central argument is that Corteva eliminated its infringement claims by depositing its seeds in a public repository, effectively placing them in the public domain Id. at 16. Inari asserts that the patent system requires public disclosure of an invention in exchange for exclusivity, and that this disclosure includes making biological materials available for public research and development. Id.
Inari also argues that Corteva has engaged in selective enforcement of its IP rights, citing the fact that Corteva has not sued other companies, such as Syngenta, which have allegedly used Corteva’s deposited seeds in a similar manner. Inari contends that the lawsuit is a strategic effort to hinder competition, particularly given Corteva’s recent investment in Pairwise, a genome-editing company that competes directly with Inari. Id. Inari also claims that Corteva is attempting to delay its entry into the market and tarnish its reputation by labeling it as a “thief” while failing to take similar action against other industry players. Id.
Additionally, Inari asserts that Corteva’s broad interpretation of infringement would improperly restrict access to publicly deposited biological materials. Id. Inari filed a counterclaim alleging patent misuse and unfair competition under the Lanham Act and Massachusetts law. Andrew Karpan, Inari Agriculture Can’t Sink Patent Case Over Corn Seed, Law360 (Aug. 5, 2024, 8:38 PM), https://www.law360.com/articles/1866345/inari-agriculture-can-t-sink-patent-case-over-corn-seed.
The court denied Inari’s motion to dismiss, concluding that Corteva had sufficiently alleged that Inari exceeded the bounds of permissible use.. The decision emphasized that while seeds may be deposited in a public repository, such deposits do not inherently grant competitors the right to use them for commercial purposes without proper authorization. Id.
Pursuant to the requirements of Praxis and The McCarthy Institute, this analysis represents my own research and interpretation of Corteva Agriscience LLC v. Inari Agriculture Inc., based on publicly available case law and reporting. While I independently wrote and structured this piece, I acknowledge that AI-assisted tools may have been used in the research and drafting process for efficiency and clarity. Any errors or omissions remain my own.