IP Law Daily, INDUSTRY NEWS: Justice Department warns overbroad seed patent enforcement could stifle new entrants, (May 13, 2026)

By Martin A. Steinberg, J.D.

Corteva claims that Inari unlawfully obtained and used Corteva’s patent- and plant-variety-protected seeds.

The U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division filed a statement of interest in a seed-industry intellectual property dispute in which Corteva Agriscience alleges that Inari Agriculture misappropriated Corteva’s protected seeds, transported them outside the United States, and used them for genome editing or other commercial purposes. The government did not take a position on the merits but urged the court not to interpret patent law in a way that would prevent the public from accessing and “reading” deposited biological material when such access is needed to understand a patented invention. The statement emphasized that patent rights rest on a bargain: inventors receive limited exclusivity, but in exchange they must disclose their inventions so others can identify patent boundaries, avoid infringement, and pursue follow-on innovation. The Department of Justice tied that principle to competition concerns in the highly concentrated seed industry, noting that access to protected seed material can be important for new entrants and small innovators seeking to compete (Corteva Agriscience LLC v. Inari Agriculture, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-01059-JFM (D. Del. May 11, 2026)).

Interest of the government. The Justice Department stated that it filed the statement of interest under 28 U.S.C. § 517 because it has a strong interest in protecting competition and promoting innovation, including through sound interpretation of intellectual property laws. The Department explained that IP laws should not be construed to provide more insulation from competition than necessary, particularly where doing so could disadvantage small businesses, solo inventors, or nascent competitors. These concerns are especially relevant in agriculture, where market concentration and the balance between IP protection, innovation, and competition have long been subjects of federal concern.

The Department emphasized that although Inari has not asserted an antitrust counterclaim against Corteva, the case raises competition concerns because the court’s interpretation of IP law could affect permissible conduct in a way that might suppress emerging competitors. The government argued that patent applicants must adequately disclose the protected material so that the public can understand what is protected and so that follow-on innovation can occur. In that context, the United States urged the court to reject infringement theories based merely on accessing and using deposited biological material to “read” the description of the patented invention. The Department does not take a position on how the law applies to the facts or on the outcome of the case, and it acknowledged that patent owners retain the right to enforce valid patent rights during the patent term.

Background. Patent law rests on a bargain: inventors receive a limited right to exclude others but must disclose the invention clearly enough for the public to understand the scope of the protected material, avoid infringement, and build on the invention once exclusivity ends. In the seed industry, the statement noted that this balance is especially important because the market is highly concentrated, entry barriers are substantial, and dominant companies control large shares of seed-related intellectual property. According to the government, access to IP-protected seed or propagation material may be necessary for follow-on innovation, as written patent disclosures alone may not enable innovators to understand or develop new plant varieties.

According to Corteva’s complaint, Corteva is a major commercial seed and plant producer that develops corn and soybean seeds and holds patents and Plant Variety Protection certificates on many seed lines. Inari is a newer market entrant with U.S. and Belgian facilities that seeks to improve seeds through genetic modification and patent the resulting modifications.

Corteva Agriscience, LLC owned U.S. Patent No. 8,575,434, titled “Maize Event DP-004114-3 and Methods for Detection Thereof.” The ’434 patent claimed a DNA construct, plants, seeds, and related biological materials and methods involving a specific maize “event”—the insertion of a particular transgene at a particular location in a plant chromosome—that conferred insect-resistance benefits in corn. As part of the patent application disclosures, Corteva deposited seed samples with ATCC, a qualified biological-materials depository, from which members of the public could obtain them by contract for research purposes, but not for commercial use.

Corteva alleges that Inari misappropriated Corteva’s protected seeds, moved them outside the United States, and used them for genome editing or other commercial purposes in violation of Corteva’s patent and plant-variety rights. The statement also noted that the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment in April 2026.

Protection for biological materials. The government argued that the court should not interpret 35 U.S.C. § 271 or related intellectual property laws in a way that restricts the public’s ability to understand a claimed invention. In particular, conduct that amounts to accessing and “reading” biological material deposited as part of the disclosure required for patent protection should not be treated as infringement. Where a biological deposit is necessary to satisfy the Patent Act’s written-description or enablement requirements, the deposit must be made available without restrictions once the patent issues. Treating access to that material as unauthorized infringement, the government says, would deprive the public of the benefit of the patent bargain: the ability to understand what is protected, avoid infringement, and pursue follow-on innovation.

Adequate disclosure. The statement explained that biological materials are subject to the same disclosure requirements as other patent claims, but written descriptions may not always be enough to enable the public to understand or practice the invention. For some biological materials, including agricultural materials, the applicant may need to deposit living material in a recognized depository to satisfy the disclosure requirements. Those deposits can serve as a substitute or supplement for written disclosure when the material cannot reasonably be described in words alone. The government notes that this practice is common and is recognized by patent law and USPTO regulations.

The government also emphasized that biological deposits operate in an international patent system. U.S. companies may access materials deposited abroad, and foreign companies may access materials deposited in the United States, subject to applicable rules. The seeds at issue were allegedly deposited with ATCC, a qualified depository. Although a patent applicant need not make deposited material publicly available while the application is pending, USPTO regulations require that restrictions on public availability be irrevocably removed once the patent is granted.

“Reading” deposited biological materials. The government argued that “reading” deposited biological material differs from reading a written patent specification because it may require physically accessing the material and performing limited acts needed to understand it, such as sequencing genetic material. In the government’s view, forbidding such access would upset the patent-law bargain because the public must receive meaningful disclosure in exchange for being excluded from practicing the invention during the patent term.

The statement rejected the idea that deposited seeds serve only to protect the patent owner’s rights. While deposits do support patent protection, the government stressed that they also provide the public with the disclosure needed to understand the patented material. Patent holders may require reasonable procedures for obtaining deposited material, such as written requests or accession numbers. Still, they should not be allowed to impose extra-statutory contractual restrictions that expand the patent’s exclusionary reach. The government therefore argued that ordering and sequencing deposited biological material to understand the invention should not be deemed “without authority” under Section 271.

The Case is No. 1:23-cv-01059-JFM.

Attorneys: Chad S.C. Stover (Barnes & Thornburg LLP) for Corteva Agriscience LLC. Angelika Kligos (White & Case LLP) for Inari Agriculture, Inc.

Companies: Corteva Agriscience LLC; Inari Agriculture, Inc.

News: DelawareNews IndustryNewsTrends