Schmeiser has served as a town councillor of Bruno since 2003 and currently serves as the deputy mayor.

Monsanto has enforced this patent against farmers who used the seed without paying Monsanto -- see Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser.

Schmeiser appealed and lost again.

Schmeiser insisted his right to save and replant seed from plants that have accidentally grown on his field overrides Monsanto's legal patent rights.

Monsanto then sued Schmeiser for patent infringement, for replanting the Roundup Ready canola seeds he had harvested without obtaining a license to use them in that way.

" ( Supreme Court Decision, Paragraph 78 ) The court also held that by planting genetically modified Roundup resistant canola, Schmeiser made use of the " stand-by " or insurance utility of the invention.

Nor does the fact that Schmeiser did not use Roundup herbicide on his crops preclude " use " of the gene.

In one high-profile case ( Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser ) the Monsanto Company sued Percy Schmeiser for patent infringement after he replanted canola seed that he had harvested from his field, which he discovered was contaminated with Monsanto's patented glyphosate-tolerant canola by spraying it with Roundup, leaving only the resistant plants.

In 1997 Percy Schmeiser discovered that canola growing on his farm was Roundup resistant.

In spring 1998, before Schmeiser planted his 1998 crop, he was informed that Monsanto believed that he had grown Roundup Ready canola in 1997.

In 1997, Percy Schmeiser, a canola breeder and grower in Bruno, Saskatchewan, discovered that a section of one of his fields contained canola that was resistant to herbicide Roundup by spraying it with Roundup, leaving only the resistant plants.

As established in the original Federal Court trial decision, Schmeiser first discovered Roundup-resistant canola in his crops in 1997.

Schmeiser claimed that he did not plant the initial Roundup Ready canola, and that his field of custom-bred canola had been accidentally contaminated.

While the origin of the plants on Schmeiser's farm remains unclear, the trial judge found that " none of the suggested sources by Schmeiser could reasonably explain the concentration or extent of Roundup Ready canola of a commercial quality " ultimately present in Schmeiser's crop.

On the basis of this the court found that Schmeiser had either known " or ought to have known " that he had planted Roundup Ready canola in 1998.

The court said it was persuaded " on the balance of probabilities " ( the standard of proof in civil cases, meaning " more probable than not " i. e. strictly greater than 50 % probability ) that the Roundup Ready canola in Mr. Schmeiser's 1997 field had not arrived there by any of the accidental means, such as spillage from a truck or pollen travelling on the wind, that Mr. Schmeiser had proposed.

In the public arena, Schmeiser supporters argued that his account still leaves open the possibility that the harvesting and replanting of Roundup Ready canola from the sprayed region was accidental and resulted from a miscommunication between Schmeiser and his farmhand, or from a failure of Schmeiser to have the presence of mind to instruct his farmhand to avoid taking canola seed for replanting from the sprayed region.

The Court ruled that Schmeiser deprived Monsanto of its monopoly on the special canola plant by storing and planting the Roundup Ready canola seeds pursuant to his commercial interests.

On March 19, 2008, Schmeiser and Monsanto Canada Inc. came to an out-of-court settlement whereby Monsanto would pay for the clean-up costs of the contamination, which came to a total of $ 660 Canadian.

Schmeiser appealed to the Supreme Court which took the case and held for Monsanto by a 5 &# 8209 ; 4 vote in late May 2004.

The amount of profits at stake was relatively small, C $ 19, 832, however by not having to pay damages, Schmeiser was also saved from having to pay Monsanto's legal bills, which amounted to several hundred thousand dollars and exceeded his own.

This interpretation is not consistent with the court rulings, which place no onus on a farmer in general nor Schmeiser in particular ( for example, see paragraph 76 of the Federal Court of Appeal ruling ) to prove the absence of the patented gene prior to growing seed.

This angle on Monsanto v. Schmeiser was misleading, as the Supreme Court eventually took pains to point out, as the case focused strictly on the application of existing patent law, and did not break new ground in biotechnology areas.

The Federal Court of Appeal in particular stressed the importance of the finding that Schmeiser had knowingly used the seed, in their decision to find Schmeiser in infringement of the patent, and noted that in a case of accidental contamination or a case where the farmer knew of the presence of the gene but took no action to increase its prevalence in his crop, a different ruling could be possible ( see paragraphs 55-58 of the appeal ruling ).

Schmeiser won a partial victory, where the court held that he did not have to pay Monsanto his profits from his 1998 crop, since the presence of the gene in his crops had not afforded him any advantage and he had made no profits on the crop that were attributable to the invention.

After about six years of court battling, Schmeiser guesses his legal bills have totalled close to C $ 400, 000.

Schmeiser claimed that because the 1997 plants grew from seed that was blown into his field from neighboring fields, that he owned the harvest and was entitled to do with it whatever he wished, including saving the seeds from the 1997 harvest and planting them in 1998.

Schmeiser won a partial victory, as the Supreme Court reversed on damages, finding that because Schmeiser did not gain any profit from the infringement, he did not owe Monsanto any damages nor did he have to pay Monsanto's substantial legal bills.

Percy Schmeiser married Louise Schmeiser in October 1952 and they have celebrated their 50th wedding anniversary.

Schmeiser harvested the seed from the surviving, Roundup resistant plants, and planted the seed in 1998.

On August 11, 1999, Schmeiser sued Monsanto for ten million dollars for " libel, trespass, and contamination of his fields with Roundup Ready Canola ".

Schmeiser then performed a test by applying Roundup to an additional to of the same field.

In Monsanto vs. Schmeiser, it was determined that protection of a patented gene or cell extends to its presence in a whole plant, even while the plant itself, as a higher lifeform, cannot be patented.

Monsanto sued Schmeiser for patent infringement for the 1998 planting ( the suit is known as Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser ).

The initial Canadian Federal Court rejected Schmeiser's defense and held for Monsanto, finding that in 1998 Schmeiser had intentionally planted the seeds he had harvested from the wind-seeded crops in 1997, and so patent infringement had indeed occurred.

* Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser, Federal Court of Canada decision

* Schmeiser v. Monsanto Canada Inc., Federal Court of Appeal decision

* Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser, Supreme Court of Canada decision

After this, Monsanto sued Schmeiser for patent infringement.

Schmeiser and his wife sent Monsanto a bill for $ 660 in cleanup costs.

# redirect Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser