Sanctions in Monsanto Case Against DuPont for Factual Misrepresentations Upheld

I was an expert, on some reissue ethical issues in this case, and watched most of the trial.  Throughout, there were a lot of discussions that I half understood (since they weren’t my issues) between counsel and the judge about this contract issue.  Now the Federal Circuit has affirmed sanctions that the district judge entered against DuPont, and I understand what was going on.

Over simplified, DuPont lost its argument that an agreement with Monsanto allowed it to engage in certain conduct, called “stacking.”  When that didn’t succeed it sought reformation of the agreement, contending that all along (from the agreement’s adoption in 2002 onward, until 2011 or so) that the parties’ intent was to allow stacking, and that it had subjectively believed so.

The district judge sanctioned DuPont because documents in 2007 showed that some high-level DuPont employees and attorneys did not think stacking was permitted.  It imposed attorneys’ fees and other sanctions.

On appeal, the panel (Lourie (auth), Reyna, Wallach) found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s finding of bad faith.  The opinion is here.

About David

Professor of Law, Mercer University School of Law. Formerly Of Counsel, Taylor English Duma, LLP and in 2012-13, judicial clerk to Chief Judge Rader.

2 thoughts on “Sanctions in Monsanto Case Against DuPont for Factual Misrepresentations Upheld

  1. 1

    David, and I wonder if the litigators were aware that they were misrepresenting the facts?

    1. 1.1

      I don’t know if it was alleged, and the district judge didn’t reach it, or…?

Comments are closed.