An intellectual property dispute concerning patent-protected biological material ended abruptly on September 27, 2026, just days into a jury trial, when Corteva and Inari reached a confidential settlement and the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware dismissed the case with prejudice.
The settlement terms are confidential, but the litigation raised an important question for patent owners and competitors alike: when patented biological material must be made publicly available to satisfy patent-disclosure requirements, what may the public do with that material without infringing the patent?
The Biological Material Deposit Dispute
The dispute arose in Corteva Agriscience LLC v. Inari Agriculture, Inc., C.A. No. 23-1059 (D. Del.), from Corteva’s deposits of its proprietary corn and soybean seeds with the American Type Culture Collection (“ATCC”), a public depository. Corteva made the deposits to satisfy the disclosure requirements for its utility patents.
A biological deposit differs from an ordinary patent disclosure. Traditional patent disclosures rely on text-based descriptions and illustrated images. In contrast, a Budapest Treaty deposit of biological material, such as a deposit made with the ATCC, inherently involves physical material to satisfy patent-disclosure requirements. As a result, “reading” a biological deposit may require the material to be obtained and scientifically analyzed for researchers to understand the unique genetic information it discloses.
In its September 2023 complaint, Corteva alleged Inari orchestrated a scheme to obtain the protected seeds for prohibited commercial use: Inari obtained the seeds through ATCC’s European distributor who transmitted Inari’s orders to ATCC in the U.S., directed shipment of the seeds to a Massachusetts consulting firm that acted as Inari’s agent, and then exported the seeds to Inari’s facility outside of the U.S., where Inari genome-edited them and sought its own patents. Corteva alleged these practices violated its intellectual property rights and ATCC’s Material Transfer Agreements (“MTAs”).
Inari moved to dismiss, arguing that because Corteva deposited the seeds to meet the disclosure requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112, the patent system required Corteva to make these seed deposits publicly available. Inari therefore argued that, as a matter of law, obtaining and examining that material could not itself constitute unauthorized infringement.
In an August 2, 2024, memorandum, Judge John Frank Murphy denied the motion in its entirety. The court held that:
- the required testing performed on the seeds in the United States could qualify as infringing “use” under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a);
- a seed could be a “component” of a patented plant for purposes of 35 U.S.C. § 271(f)(2); and
- restrictions on commercial use of deposited material are consistent with the Patent Office’s public-availability requirements.
DOJ Weighs In on the “Reading” Question
The case drew an unusual federal intervention as it headed toward trial, and the U.S. Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division filed a Statement of Interest on May 11, 2026. The DOJ urged the court not to interpret § 271 so that merely accessing and “reading” deposited biological material could constitute infringement “without authority.” The United States described activities such as “ordering and sequencing genetic material” as activities that can amount to accessing and “reading” biological material, but expressly declined to address what conduct beyond “reading” constitutes infringement.
The DOJ grounded its position in competition policy and warned that an overly expansive reading of IP rights could weaken rather than foster follow-on innovation by new entrants. The United States expressly declined to take a position on how the law should apply to the facts of this case and acknowledged that patent owners may enforce their rights during the patent term.
This distinction is significant because Corteva alleged conduct beyond merely examining deposited material to understand the patented invention. According to Corteva, the material in question was exported and genome-edited, and Inari sought patent protection arising from this work.
Practical Takeaways
This case underscores several takeaways, even though the confidential settlement leaves core questions unresolved. Public availability of a biological deposit does not necessarily permit unrestricted use of the deposited material. Although the DOJ took the position that merely accessing and “reading” deposited material should not constitute infringement, the line between “reading” and patent infringement remains unresolved.
Clients who acquire deposited biological materials should also carefully evaluate and document whether their activities extend beyond accessing and “reading” deposited material and may implicate the patent owner's exclusive rights. Contractual restrictions on commercial use and transfer, as well as the potential territorial reach of U.S. patent law, present additional considerations.
Of course, a biological material deposit is not always required to obtain patent protection. But clients who forgo it and rely on MTAs or other contractual protections instead of patent rights should recognize the limitations of this approach. An MTA binds the parties subject to them but may not reach third parties that obtain the material outside the contractual chain. Nor does it reach a competitor who independently develops or reverse-engineers the same material. Patent protection, when available, can therefore provide rights that extend beyond those created by an MTA.
Clients structuring biological deposit, licensing, and research programs should consider the scope of their patent and contractual protections practices and whether activities involving deposited materials extend beyond permissible “reading” into potentially infringing use.
If you have any questions regarding this alert, please reach out to one of the authors.
**********************
NOTE: Associate Dawn Edelman contributed to the writing of this alert. Her bar admission is pending.
