Federal court validates Dow AgroSciences position
Dow AgroSciences LLC, a subsidiary of The Dow Chemical Company, has prevailed in its motion for summary judgment in a key patent infringement lawsuit involving its highly-anticipated Enlist Weed Control System. The lawsuit, filed in December 2010 by Bayer CropScience SA, alleged that Dow AgroSciences’ herbicide tolerance technology infringed one of its patents. In a ruling issued on Sept. 27, 2012, a federal district court sided with Dow AgroSciences, determining that its Enlist technology does not infringe Bayer’s patent, and that Bayer’s overbroad interpretation of its patent claims would render them invalid.
Dow AgroSciences has repeatedly expressed its confidence in its legal position in this case, and the Court’s decision has confirmed the company’s conviction and resolve to advance technology for its customers.
“We are pleased that the ruling fully supports Dow AgroSciences’ position. The court correctly found that Dow AgroSciences did not infringe Bayer’s intellectual property,” said William Wales, Vice President and General Counsel, Dow AgroSciences. “Dow AgroSciences remains committed to ensuring our innovative Enlist technology is available for farmers as they struggle with weed control issues.”
Bayer strongly disagrees with the court’s reasoning and has filed an appeal. This patent is one of 12 Bayer patents asserted against DAS’s herbicide tolerance products.
- China adopts stricter pesticide residue standard
- Researchers target soybean disease with genetic resistance study
- K-State Cropping Systems Field Day Set Aug. 28 in Garden City
- Ag markets ended the week in mixed fashion
- Ag turned decidedly mixed Friday morning
- Fall armyworm moth capture sees big jump
- Don’t link bird decline and use of neonicotinoids
- Solar energy jobs increase, wind power decrease
- Comments end for Enlist Duo but not the fight
- Setting the record straight on 'Waters of the U.S.'
- Commentary: Setting the record straight on 'Waters of the U.S.'
- Look at fertilizer pricing 2013 vs. 2014