Who gains from saving nature
Ledger 1 : 33 — For each dollar financing nature-based solutions in 2023, about $33 financed activities harmful to nature. (UNEP)
Cases / Genetic resources and benefit-sharing · United States · 1996–2013

US Supreme Court ruled that replanting patented seed infringes the patent

Short record: the main facts, with sources. A full case file has not been prepared.

Nature's voice · report
No measurement of the harm done to me here is on record.
Did nature suffer? Not measured.
Not on record
  • The record does not name which of my species, waters, soils or forests were harmed.
What the record lacks: 3 none on record · 1 not measured · 1 disputed See the gaps

In 2013 the US Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Bowman v. Monsanto that planting and multiplying patented seed infringes the patent. The Center for Food Safety, an advocacy group, counts 142 suits against 410 farmers, with more than 23 million dollars won by Monsanto.

What?
The US Supreme Court held unanimously in 2013 that planting and multiplying patented seed infringes Monsanto's patent. WIPO Magazine
Where?
United States WIPO Magazine
When?
Supreme Court ruling in 2013; suits in the US counted from 1996. WIPO Magazine
Who?
Gained
  • Monsanto — Won Bowman and, per the Center for Food Safety count, more than 23 million dollars in suits
Lost
  • Farmers who saved and replanted patented seed — Held liable for infringement; the Center for Food Safety counts 410 farmers sued
Harmed
None on record
Why?
Not stated in the sources reviewed.
How?
Patent infringement suits against farmers who saved and replanted seed.
6 of 6 questions answered from the record

What happened

The record, in order.

WIPO Magazine reported on 13 May 2013 that the Supreme Court had upheld the ban on saving patented seed, ruling unanimously that planting and multiplying patented seed infringes the patent.

Civil Eats (February 2026) reported the Center for Food Safety count of 142 suits against 410 farmers, with more than 23 million dollars won by Monsanto.

A count cited in the sources reviewed puts the number of US suits since 1996 at about 146 to 147, which the sources describe as cases of deliberate seed saving and replanting.

According to the sources reviewed, the farmer in Bowman paid 84,456 dollars.

    In court and with insurers

    Every proceeding and every insurer decision on record.

    Lawsuits and rulings

    1. 2013Claimant won
      Bowman v. Monsanto Co.
      Supreme Court of the United States · Civil · Monsanto Co. → Farmer (individual, not named)

      Unanimous ruling that planting and multiplying patented seed infringes the patent. WIPO Magazine

    Insurers

    No insurer decision on record.

    What we don't know

    Undisclosed, unproven, untried: recorded as data.

    Nature

    • Not measured Harm to nature: The record holds no measurement of harm to nature.

    Record

    • None on record The Center for Food Safety count is an advocacy group's tally; the sources reviewed do not list the individual cases.
    • Disputed The two suit counts (146 to 147 since 1996, and 142 by the Center for Food Safety) differ and are not reconciled in the sources reviewed.
    • None on record A Canadian case involving Monsanto is cited in the sources reviewed, but its date and outcome are not stated.
    • None on record The sources reviewed do not say whether the 84,456 dollar payment was ordered by the court or agreed.

    Did the harm stop?

    Not stated in the sources reviewed.

    Who paid?

    Not stated in the sources reviewed.

    Sources

    Voices on record: — Company or project— Government and regulators— Courts✓ Press and investigations— Communities and civil society— Researchers

    Press and investigations

    Connected cases

    Related matters, and cases linked to this one through the same organisations, with the role each played in both.
    Similar cases
    Genetic resources and benefit-sharing · India · 2004–2022
    Turmeric, neem, basmati, Nap Hal patent revocations
    Same type: Genetic resources and benefit-sharingCourt: won by claimantHarm to nature not measured
    Genetic resources and benefit-sharing · Protected area / relocation · Kenya · 1970–2026
    Endorois and Lake Bogoria enzyme extraction (Kenya)
    Same type: Genetic resources and benefit-sharingCourt: won by claimantHarm to nature not measured
    Genetic resources and benefit-sharing · Brazil · 2014–2024
    Brazil: benefit-sharing fund (FNRB) and IBAMA biopiracy fines
    Same type: Genetic resources and benefit-sharingHarm to nature not measured
    Genetic resources and benefit-sharing · International · 2004–2025
    FAO Plant Treaty multilateral system and benefit-sharing fund
    Same type: Genetic resources and benefit-sharingHarm to nature not measured
    Genetic resources and benefit-sharing · Global · 2025–2026
    WHO Pandemic Agreement and the PABS annex
    Same type: Genetic resources and benefit-sharingHarm to nature not measured
    Genetic resources and benefit-sharing · Indonesia · 2007–2026
    Indonesia's H5N1 sample withholding and the WHO PIP Framework
    Same type: Genetic resources and benefit-sharingHarm to nature not measured