Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
May 15, 2002

The Federal Court of Appeal will today begin hearing the appeal of a March 29, 2001 Federal Court of Canada decision in which Justice Andrew MacKay found Bruno, Saskatchewan farmer Percy Schmeiser guilty of violating Monsanto's patent pertaining to the Roundup Ready gene in canola.

In his original decision, Justice MacKay ruled that Mr. Schmeiser "knew or ought to have known" that he had saved and planted seed that was Roundup tolerant and had therefore infringed Monsanto's Roundup Ready patented technology.

Justice MacKay pointed to independent tests that showed 1,030 acres of Mr. Schmeiser's canola were 95 per cent to 98 per cent tolerant to Roundup herbicide. At such a high level of tolerance, Justice MacKay ruled the seed could only be of commercial quality and could not have arrived in Mr. Schmeiser's field by accident. 

On June 19, 2001, Mr. Schmeiser filed an appeal of Justice MacKay's decision. Monsanto subsequently filed a cross appeal on June 28, 2001.

During its cross appeal, Monsanto will dispute the value of the "profits" awarded on Schmeiser's 1998 canola crop, but otherwise believes the judgment of Justice MacKay was correct and should not be overturned on appeal.

"Under Canadian law Mr. Schmeiser certainly has the right to appeal Justice MacKay's decision and we respect that right," said Jordan. "However, the previous settlement offer we proposed was a genuine compromise on our part to end the litigation between the parties and avoid any further legal costs by either side."

At the April 17, 2002 supplementary judgment on costs, Justice MacKay ordered that Monsanto be awarded an amount approximating Cdn$153,000 for recoverable costs it had incurred during the litigation. This amount is in addition to the profits from Mr. Schmeiser's 1998 canola crop, which Justice MacKay determined to be Cdn$19,832.

Jordan said Monsanto is satisfied Mr. Schmeiser was found guilty of violating its patent and that after hearing the evidence in this case, Justice MacKay concluded that Mr. Schmeiser's arguments were implausible.