United States Court of Appeals, Case Study

Open, View, and/or
Download this Document

Total Length: 866 words ( 3 double-spaced pages)

Total Sources: 3

Page 1 of 3

Thus Koppatschek's testimony is reliable.

In light of David's blatant disregard of the stipulations of the contract with Monsanto, his attempts to cover up his infringement, his inconsistent testimony and his apparent disregard for the legal process, the Court finds that Monsanto v. David does fit the definition of an exceptional case.

Because David violated the Technology Agreement which he signed with Monsanto, there was no reason why Monsanto could not be awarded the attorney's fees stated in said agreement.

Holding

Court hold the decision of the lower court in part, holding that the district court did not err in determining that David planted saved seed. The Court held the damages awarded in the amount of $10,000 in enhanced damages, $164,608.03 in costs, and $323,140.05 in attorney fees. However, the Court finds that the alternate award of $30,542.99 duplicated the $164,608.03 damages, and therefore was erroneous and therefore reversed. The court upholds a royalty fee of $55.04 per unit. The court remanded, however, the density of those seeds to the lower court, finding the basis on David's quoted 120 lbs density to be erroneous.

Use of Precedent, Effect on Future Cases

The holdings of this court uphold the findings of the court in Monsanto v. McFarling, which states that absent a showing of fraud, a party who signed an agreement was bound by that agreement.

Stuck Writing Your "United States Court of Appeals," Case Study?

View All Our Example United States Court of Appeals, Case Study

Have A Custom Example Essay Written



The holding of this court uphold the findings of the court in Gussack v. Xerox, in which it ruled that testimony can be properly admitted by an expert who did not perform his own tests, as well as Ratliff v. Schiber Truck Co., which found that an expert may properly rely on a report prepared by a third party.

This holding adds to the finding in J.E.M. Ag. Supply, Inc. v Pioneer Hi Bred International which stated that plants can only be patented under the P.P.A. Or the P.V.P.A. A utility patent can also be used to patent a plant.

Effect on Business and Society

It is evident from the court's holding that patentees do have considerable power to protect their patents from those who would misuse their products. For farmers, the saving of seed crops may only be done if doing so would not violate a patented product received under restrictive contract from their supplier specifying that they may not do so. For the technology sector, this holding is propitious, allowing patentees to distribute their product for use with less fear that purchasers will be unjustly enriched through the use of their product......

Show More ⇣

     Open the full completed essay and source list


OR

     Order a one-of-a-kind custom essay on this topic


sample essay writing service

Cite This Resource:

Latest APA Format (6th edition)

Copy Reference
"United States Court Of Appeals " (2011, November 21) Retrieved May 15, 2024, from
https://www.aceyourpaper.com/essays/united-states-court-appeals-47760

Latest MLA Format (8th edition)

Copy Reference
"United States Court Of Appeals " 21 November 2011. Web.15 May. 2024. <
https://www.aceyourpaper.com/essays/united-states-court-appeals-47760>

Latest Chicago Format (16th edition)

Copy Reference
"United States Court Of Appeals ", 21 November 2011, Accessed.15 May. 2024,
https://www.aceyourpaper.com/essays/united-states-court-appeals-47760
   

Open, View, and/or
Download this Document
order custom essay example