The Supreme Court first strategy to solve the case was to see if this idea or concept already exists before the Monsanto Company use it in their business plan. Surprisingly, they discovered a scientist, Dr. John Olin, produced a chemical compound that will get rid of weeds without causing harm or damage to any plant known as CP 53619. It was made up of 2 Chloro-2, 6 Diethyl-N-(Butoxy-Methyl)-Acetanilide which was the perfect amount of toxic mixed together to fight off weeds. The International Rice Research Institute referred to the chemical equation as “the most outstanding new pre-emergence herbicide on the market (August 2004; p.488)”. The formula earned the name Butachlor. Next since the Supreme Court found that a product already exists,
…show more content…
Without knowing the product already exist, the Supreme knew instantly the Monsanto Company assessment was false and had to test their theory. Therefore, they sent ingredient to the Ram Institute to gather analysis and see if there was any comparison between the Monsanto Company products and CP 53619. Shockingly, the report indicated what the Supreme Court assumed all along that the ingredients for the Monsanto Company products contain the same formula for CP 53619 or Butachlor of 2 Chloro-2, 6-Diethyl-N-(Butoxy-Methyl) Acetanilide (August 2004; p. 488). They even analysis the Patents Act of 1970 that the defendant brought to help their case to see if there was anything to help this case and it was so very helpful facts that made the defendant’s and the plaintiff’s case invalid. According to the Patents Acts of 1970 Section 64 (e) that states: “a patent may be revoked if the invention concept of an individual’s claim of the actual idea is not new, whether the idea was well-known or already been used in a certain area prior to the date the claim was sent
Without knowing the product already exist, the Supreme knew instantly the Monsanto Company assessment was false and had to test their theory. Therefore, they sent ingredient to the Ram Institute to gather analysis and see if there was any comparison between the Monsanto Company products and CP 53619. Shockingly, the report indicated what the Supreme Court assumed all along that the ingredients for the Monsanto Company products contain the same formula for CP 53619 or Butachlor of 2 Chloro-2, 6-Diethyl-N-(Butoxy-Methyl) Acetanilide (August 2004; p. 488). They even analysis the Patents Act of 1970 that the defendant brought to help their case to see if there was anything to help this case and it was so very helpful facts that made the defendant’s and the plaintiff’s case invalid. According to the Patents Acts of 1970 Section 64 (e) that states: “a patent may be revoked if the invention concept of an individual’s claim of the actual idea is not new, whether the idea was well-known or already been used in a certain area prior to the date the claim was sent