Monsanto Company v. Homan McFarling
363 F.3d 1336 (2004)
Rule of Law:
Under Missouri law, a liquidated damages clause is an unenforceable penalty if it applies a single, fixed formula to multiple, distinct contractual breaches that would cause different levels of harm or applies to different products with varying characteristics.
Facts:
- Monsanto Company developed and patented ROUNDUP READY® soybean seeds, which are genetically modified to be resistant to its ROUNDUP® herbicide.
- To purchase these seeds, farmers were required to sign a Monsanto Technology Agreement, which licensed the technology for a single growing season.
- The agreement expressly prohibited farmers from saving any seeds produced from the crop for the purpose of replanting them in a subsequent season.
- The agreement contained a liquidated damages clause stating that if a grower saves, supplies, or sells seed for replant in violation of the agreement, damages would be 120 times the applicable Technology Fee.
- In 1998, Homan McFarling, a farmer, signed the Technology Agreement in connection with his purchase of 1,000 bags of ROUNDUP READY® soybean seeds.
- McFarling saved 1,500 bushels of seed from his 1998 crop and replanted them on his farm in 1999.
- McFarling then saved 3,075 bags of soybeans from his 1999 crop and replanted them in 2000.
- Monsanto discovered McFarling was saving seeds when he sent harvested seeds to a third party for cleaning and Monsanto had samples tested.
Procedural Posture:
- Monsanto Company sued Homan McFarling in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri for patent infringement and breach of contract.
- McFarling raised affirmative defenses and counterclaims, including patent misuse, antitrust violations, and arguing the liquidated damages clause was an unenforceable penalty.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Monsanto on the breach of contract claim and McFarling's counterclaims.
- The district court held that the liquidated damages provision was valid and enforceable, calculating damages to be $780,000, and entered a final judgment for that amount.
- McFarling (Appellant) appealed the district court's final judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a liquidated damages clause that applies a single multiplier to different types of contractual breaches and different products with varying rates of self-replication constitute an unenforceable penalty under Missouri law?
Opinions:
Majority - Clevenger, Circuit Judge
Yes, a liquidated damages clause that applies a single multiplier to different types of breaches and products constitutes an unenforceable penalty under Missouri law. The court held that to be valid, a liquidated damages clause must be (1) a reasonable forecast of the harm caused by the breach, and (2) the harm must be difficult to accurately estimate. The court applied Missouri's 'anti-one-size rule,' which construes a single damage amount for breaches of varying importance as a penalty. The 120x multiplier failed this rule for two primary reasons. First, the same agreement and multiplier applied to different crops (soybeans, cotton) with vastly different rates of self-replication (36:1 for soybeans vs. 120:1 for cotton), so the multiplier could not be a reasonable forecast of harm for both. Second, the clause applied the same damages for fundamentally different breaches—saving seed for personal replanting versus supplying or selling seed to third parties. The harm from selling seed is far greater and harder to trace than the harm from personal replanting. Because the clause was not a reasonable forecast of harm for the specific breach of replanting, but rather a tool for deterrence, it is an unenforceable penalty. The court affirmed the judgment of liability for breach of contract but vacated the damages award and remanded for a calculation of Monsanto's actual damages.
Analysis:
This decision significantly restricts the enforceability of broad, 'one-size-fits-all' liquidated damages clauses in technology licensing agreements. It clarifies that such clauses must be tailored to specific breaches and products to be considered a genuine pre-estimate of harm rather than an impermissible penalty. The ruling forces licensors to draft more nuanced and justifiable damages provisions, potentially creating separate clauses for different types of violations (e.g., personal use vs. commercial distribution) to ensure they are upheld. By grounding its reasoning in state contract law (the 'anti-one-size rule'), the court demonstrates that fundamental contract principles apply with full force to intellectual property agreements, limiting a patent holder's ability to use contractual terms to deter infringement beyond what compensatory damages would allow.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Monsanto Company v. Homan McFarling (2004)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"