Patent infringement

Referring to an article in The Jakarta Post, Jan. 20, 2004 entitled Canadian farmer vs. Monsanto by Stephen Leahy (Inter Press Service, Brooklin, Canada), we would like to clarify the real facts surrounding the case in the article.

On Jan. 20, 2004, the Supreme Court of Canada heard the appeal of a federal Court of Appeal decision that found Bruno, Saskatchewan farmer Percy Schmeiser liable for violating Monsanto's patent pertaining to the Roundup Ready gene in canola. Though the court's decision is not expected for months, it will be the world's first high court ruling on gene patent infringement.

During the original trial, justice Andrew MacKay of the Federal Court of Canada pointed to independent tests that showed 417 hectares of Schmeiser's canola were 95 percent to 98 percent tolerant to Roundup herbicide. At such a high level of tolerance, Justice MacKay ruled the seed could only be of commercial quality and could not have arrived in Schmeiser's field by accident.

In the 2003 growing season, 89 percent of all canola acres planted were herbicide tolerant, with Roundup Ready canola accounting for close to half of the total planted acres. The case of Percy Schmeiser and Schmeiser Enterprises Ltd. vs. Monsanto Canada Inc. and Monsanto Company is the only patent infringement case in Canada involving Monsanto's patented canola technology to be heard by the Federal Court of Canada. Readers should know that Monsanto only initiates legal action to protect its patent in situations where it believes there has been a knowing and deliberate violation of its intellectual property.

It has never been, nor will it ever be, Monsanto Canada's policy to exercise its patent rights where Roundup tolerant crops are present in a farmer's field as a result of inadvertent or unexpected acts.

EDWIN SARAGIH Government and Public Affairs Officer PT. Monagro Kimia, Jakarta