Cases

DYK, Circuit Judge. Appellants, a coalition of farmers, seed sellers, and agricultural organizations, sought declaratory judgments of non-infringement and invalidity with respect to twenty-three patents owned by Monsanto Co. and Monsanto Technology, LLC (collectively, “Monsanto”). The district court concluded that there was no justiciable case or controversy and dismissed for

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER JOHN A. ROSS, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on Defendant Omega Farm Supply, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss Counts I, II and IV of Plaintiff Monsanto Company’s Complaint and Motion to Transfer Remaining Counts Due to Improper Venue. (Doc. No. 9) The motion is fully briefed and ready for disposition. I. Background Plain

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER AUDREY G. FLEISSIG, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE This products liability action is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ two motions (Doc. Nos. 24 & 39) to remand the case to state court. Twelve individual Plaintiffs seek to hold four inter-related corporations liable, under Missouri tort law, for the manufacture and sale of polychlorinated biphenyls (“PCBs”), environmental and dieta

BAKER, Judge, dissenting. I respectfully dissent. I agree that if there were federal court jurisdiction over these parties, then Congress intended the federal district courts to be the exclusive venue in which an arbitrator's subpoena may be enforced. But I simply cannot conclude that where, as here, there is no federal court jurisdiction, Congress intended to tie the hands of the arbitrators and the States in this f

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PETER ENGILIS, Jr.; CATHY No. 23-4201 ENGILIS, D.C. No. 3:19-cv-07859- Plaintiffs - Appellants, VC v. MONSANTO COMPANY, OPINION Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court

RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Circuit Judge. This lawsuit began in 1997 when Novartis Seeds, Inc., sued Monsanto Company in a Minnesota state court. The plaintiff alleged that Monsanto broke development and license agreements involving genetically engineered, insect-resistant seed corn. After removing the case to the District Court, Monsanto filed a motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction

HAYES, Judge: The matter before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Counterclaims filed by Plaintiff City of San Diego. (ECF No. 208). I. BACKGROUND On December 22, 2016, the City of San Diego (the "City") filed the Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") against Defendants Monsanto Company, Solutia Inc., and Pharmacia Corporation (collectively, Monsanto). (ECF No. 93). T

BRYSON, Circuit Judge. Myeogen Plant Science, Inc., and its licensee, Agrigeneties, Inc., (collectively “Myeogen”) filed suit against the Monsanto Company in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, charging Monsanto with infringing Mycogen’s U.S. Patent No. 5,380,831 (the '831 patent). On Monsanto’s motions for summary judgment, the district c

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING BRYSON, Circuit Judge. Based on the prosecution history of My-cogen’s U.S. Patent No. 5,380,881 (the '831 patent), we held in our initial opinion in this case that Mycogen is not entitled to invoke the doctrine of equivalents with respect to claims 13 and 14 of the patent. 252 F.3d 1306, 1319-20, 58 USPQ2d 1891, 1901-02. In its

SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI en banc STATE EX REL. MONSANTO COMPANY, ) Opinion issued August 15, 2023 ) Relator, ) ) v. ) No. SC99942 ) THE HONORABLE MICHAEL MULLEN, ) ) Respondent. )

ORDER MICHAEL P. MILLS, Chief Judge. This cause comes before the court on the motion of the parties for various post-trial relief in the above-entitled action. On September 21, 2010, a jury awarded plaintiff Monsanto Company a total of $8.9 million in damages against defendants for the infringement of patents covering the Roundup Ready® and Bollgard® seeds which it developed. The primary issues

503 F.3d 1352 (2007) MONSANTO COMPANY, Monsanto Technology LLC, and Dekalb Genetics Corp., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SYNGENTA SEEDS, INC., Syngenta Biotechnology, Inc., Garst Seed Company, Golden Harvest Seeds, Inc., Garwood Seed Co., Golden Seed Company, LLC, Sommer Bros. Seed Company, Thorp Seed Co., and JC Robinson Seeds, Inc., Defendants-Appellees. No. 2006-1472. United States Court of Appeals, Fed

404 F.Supp.2d 594 (2005) SYNGENTA SEEDS, INC., Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Dekalb Genetics Corp., Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc., Dow Agrosciences, LLC, and Mycogen Plant Science, Inc. and Agrigenetics, Inc., collectively d.b.a. Mycogen Seeds, Defendants. No. Civ. 02-1331-DLR. United States District Court, D. Delaware. December 8, 2005.

In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District DIVISION FOUR SHARLEAN GORDON, ) No. ED112075 ) Appellant, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ) of St. Louis County vs.

HAYES, Judge: The matter before the Court is the Motion for Reconsideration or, in the alternative, Certification for Interlocutory Appeal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) filed by Defendants Monsanto Company, Solutia Inc., and Pharmacia Corporation. (ECF No. 175). I. BACKGROUND

In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District DIVISION FOUR STACEY MOORE, ) No. ED112004 ) Appellant, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ) of St. Louis County v. ) Cause No. 20SL-CC03678

404 F.Supp.2d 584 (2005) SYNGENTA SEEDS, INC., Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Dekalb Genetics Corp., Pioneer Hibred International, Inc., Dow Agrosciences, LLC, and Mycogen Plant Science, Inc. and Agrigenetics, Inc., collectively d.b.a. Mycogen Seeds, Defendants. No. CIV. 02-1331-SLR. United States District Court, D. Delaware. December 8, 2005.

ORDER The parties having so agreed, it is *383ORDERED that the proceeding is DISMISSED under Fed. R.App. P. 42(b).

ORDER The parties having so agreed, it is *383ORDERED that the proceeding is DISMISSED under Fed. R.App. P. 42(b).

409 F.Supp.2d 536 (2005) SYNGENTA SEEDS, INC., Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Dekalb Genetics Corp., Pioneer Hibred International, Inc., Dow Agrosciences, LLC, and Mycogen Plant Science, Inc. and Agrigenetics, Inc., collectively d.b.a. Mycogen Seeds, Defendants. No. 02-1331-SLR. United States District Court, D. Delaware. December 8, 2005.