IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA CENTRAL DIVISION PIONEER HI-BRED INTERNATIONAL,

INC., Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant. ) ) ) Civil Case No. 4:11-cv-00497 ) ) ) ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ) ) )

COMPLAINT Plaintiff Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. (Pioneer) brings this Complaint for patent infringement against Defendant Monsanto Company (Monsanto), and alleges as follows: NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. This is an action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the

United States, including 35 U.S.C. 271 and 28185. 2. This lawsuit pertains to Monsantos infringement of U.S. Patent Number

5,518,989 (the 989 Patent), entitled Seed Vigor by Pre-Harvest Defoliation of Maize Plants, and U.S. Patent Number 6,162,974 (the 974 Patent), also entitled Seed Vigor by Pre-Harvest Defoliation of Maize Plants. PARTIES 3. Plaintiff Pioneer is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the

state of Iowa, with its principal place of business located in Polk County, at 7000 NW 62nd Ave., Johnston, Iowa 50131. Pioneer is one of the worlds largest producers of hybrid seed for agricultural use, including for use by corn, soybean, sunflower, canola, rice, sorghum, alfalfa,

and wheat farmers. Pioneer also supplies agricultural services in fields such as agronomy and crop management. 4. Defendant Monsanto is a business organized and existing under the laws of the

state of Delaware, with its principal place of business at 800 North Lindbergh Blvd., St. Louis, Missouri 63167. Upon information and belief, Monsanto is a business involved in, among other things, the manufacture and distribution of agricultural seed and herbicides. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. 101 et

seq., including 35 U.S.C. 271. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1338(a). 6. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Monsanto. Monsanto maintains

substantial, continuous, and systematic contacts in the State of Iowa. Monsanto has thus purposefully availed itself of the benefits and protections of Iowas laws such that it should reasonably anticipate being haled into court here. Upon information and belief, Monsanto, among other things: a. employs in excess of 1,000 Iowans, in fields ranging from the manufacture and distribution of seed to agronomic research and development; b. maintains facilities in at least 18 locations throughout the State of Iowa, including (according to Monsantos web site) at Ames, Anamosa, Ankeny, Aplington, Atlantic, Beaman, Boone, Cedar Falls, Cedar Rapids, Clarion, Dayton, Grinnell, Huxley, Independence, Muscatine, Spencer, Storm Lake, and Williamsburg; and

-2-

c. lobbies the Iowa legislature on matters of concern to Monsantos business, exercising influence over the laws of Iowa. 7. 1400(b). FACTUAL BACKGROUND 8. Plaintiff Pioneer is the owner, by assignment, of all rights, title and interest in the Venue is proper in the Southern District of Iowa pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391,

989 Patent. Inventors Barry Martin, John Schoper, and Laurie Carrigan filed their application for the 989 Patent on January 31, 1994. The 989 Patent issued on May 21, 1996. A true and correct copy of the 989 Patent is attached as Exhibit A. 9. The 989 Patent claims a method of enhancing the vigor of maize seeds by

defoliating the maize plant at a particular time after pollination but before harvest. 10. Plaintiff Pioneer is the owner, by assignment, of all rights, title and interest in the

974 Patent. Inventors Barry Martin, John Schoper, and Laurie Carrigan filed their application for the 974 Patent on November 26, 1997. The 974 Patent issued on December 19, 2000. A true and correct copy of the 974 Patent is attached as Exhibit B. 11. The 974 Patent claims a maize seed and a stand of maize plants, the seed vigor of

which has been enhanced by defoliating the maize plant at a particular time after pollination but before harvest. 12. Upon information and belief, Monsanto has been on notice of the 989 Patent and

the 974 Patent at least since Monsanto has employed two of the inventors, Barry Martin and John Schoper. Monsanto has been further aware of the relevance of the 989 Patent and the 974 Patent to the production of improved corn seeds.

-3-

COUNT I - INFRINGEMENT OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 5,518,989 13. Pioneer restates and realleges each of the assertions set forth in Paragraphs 1

through 12 above. 14. Either directly or through its agents, Monsanto infringes one or more of the claims

of the 989 Patent. 15. Monsanto and/or its agents operate cornfields for the production of corn seed in

Constantine, Michigan. 16. Upon information and belief, Monsanto and/or its agents have used the method of

the 989 Patent to produce seeds at least at its Constantine, Michigan site. Physical observation of the Monsanto fields reveal uniform defoliation associated with the process of the patents-insuit, as shown below:

-4-

17.

Upon information and belief, the type, timing, and uniformity of the defoliation

indicates that it was performed within the time window taught in the patents-in-suit. 18. The infringement by Monsanto and/or its agents of the 989 Patent will continue

to cause Pioneer irreparable injury and damage for which there is no adequate remedy at law unless and until Monsanto is enjoined from infringing said patent. 19. Pioneer is entitled to recover from Monsanto the damages sustained by Pioneer as

a result of Monsantos wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at trial, including lost profits and an amount not less than a reasonable royalty, together with interest and costs as fixed by this Court under 35 U.S.C. 284. 20. Upon information and belief, Monsanto is engaging in willful and deliberate

infringement of the 989 Patent. Such willful and deliberate infringement justifies an increase of three times the damages to be assessed pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 284 and an award of attorneys fees under 35 U.S.C. 285. COUNT II - INFRINGEMENT OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 6,162,974 21. Pioneer restates and realleges each of the assertions set forth in Paragraphs 1

through 20 above. 22. Either directly or through its agents, Monsanto infringes one or more of the claims

of the 974 Patent at least at its facility in Constantine, Michigan. 23. The infringement by Monsanto and/or its agents of the 974 Patent will continue

to cause Pioneer irreparable injury and damage for which there is no adequate remedy at law unless and until Monsanto is enjoined from infringing said patent. 24. Pioneer is entitled to recover from Monsanto the damages sustained by Pioneer as

a result of Monsantos wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at trial, including lost profits

-5-

and an amount not less than a reasonable royalty, together with interest and costs as fixed by this Court under 35 U.S.C. 284. 25. Upon information and belief, Monsanto is engaging in willful and deliberate

infringement of the 974 Patent. Such willful and deliberate infringement justifies an increase of three times the damages to be assessed pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 284 and an award of attorneys fees under 35 U.S.C. 285. COUNT III INDIRECT INFRINGEMENT OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 5,518,989 26. Pioneer restates and realleges each of the assertions set forth in Paragraphs 1

through 25 above. 27. Upon information and belief, Monsanto has willfully, deliberately, and actively

induced and/or contributed (and is continuing to willfully, deliberately, and actively induce and/or contribute) to the infringement by others of the 989 Patent by causing its growers at least in Constantine, Michigan, to defoliate and ultimately harvest maize plants in an infringing manner. 28. Monsanto has specifically intended that its growers defoliate and ultimately

harvest maize plants in a manner that infringes the 989 Patent. 29. The indirect infringement by Monsanto of the 989 Patent will continue to cause

Pioneer irreparable injury and damage for which there is no adequate remedy at law unless and until Monsanto is enjoined from infringing said patent. 30. Pioneer is entitled to recover from Monsanto the damages sustained by Pioneer as

a result of Monsantos wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at trial, including lost profits and an amount not less than a reasonable royalty, together with interest and costs as fixed by this Court under 35 U.S.C. 284.

-6-

31.

Upon information and belief, Monsanto is engaging in willful and deliberate

indirect infringement of the 989 Patent. Such willful and deliberate indirect infringement justifies an increase of three times the damages to be assessed pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 284 and an award of attorneys fees under 35 U.S.C. 285. 32. Upon information and belief, Monsanto will continue to induce others to infringe

and/or contribute to the infringement of the 989 Patent unless and until enjoined by this Court. COUNT IV INDIRECT INFRINGEMENT OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 6,162,974 33. Pioneer restates and realleges each of the assertions set forth in Paragraphs 1

through 32 above. 34. Upon information and belief, Monsanto has willfully, deliberately, and actively

induced and/or contributed (and is continuing to willfully, deliberately, and actively induce and/or contribute) to the infringement by others of the 974 Patent by causing its growers at least in Constantine, Michigan, to produce infringing seeds and stands of maize plants. 35. Monsanto has specifically intended that its growers produce seeds and stands of

maize plants that infringe the 974 Patent. 36. The indirect infringement by Monsanto of the 989 Patent will continue to cause

Pioneer irreparable injury and damage for which there is no adequate remedy at law unless and until Monsanto is enjoined from infringing said patent. 37. Pioneer is entitled to recover from Monsanto the damages sustained by Pioneer as

a result of Monsantos wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at trial, including lost profits and an amount not less than a reasonable royalty, together with interest and costs as fixed by this Court under 35 U.S.C. 284.

-7-

38.

Upon information and belief, Monsanto is engaging in willful and deliberate

indirect infringement of the 974 Patent. Such willful and deliberate indirect infringement justifies an increase of three times the damages to be assessed pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 284 and an award of attorneys fees under 35 U.S.C. 285. 39. Upon information and belief, Monsanto will continue to induce others to infringe

and/or contribute to the infringement of the 974 Patent unless and until enjoined by this Court. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Pioneer respectfully requests that the Court enter judgment in its favor against Monsanto, granting the following relief: a. An adjudication that Monsanto has infringed one or more claims of the 989

Patent and one or more claims of the 974 Patent literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents; b. An adjudication that Monsanto has willfully, deliberately, and actively induced

others to infringe the 989 Patent and the 974 Patent; c. d. An adjudication that Monsantos direct and indirect infringement has been willful; A permanent injunction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 283, enjoining Monsanto and its

agents, servants, officers, directors, employees, affiliated entities, and all persons in active concert or participation with them from continued infringement of the 989 Patent and the 974 Patent; e. An award to Pioneer of damages adequate to compensate Pioneer for Monsantos

acts of infringement of the 989 Patent and the 974 Patent; f. An award to Pioneer equal to any profits that Monsanto gained from its

infringement of the 989 Patent and the 974 Patent;

-8-

g. h. i.

A trebling of any damages assessed in light of Monsantos willful infringement; An award of prejudgment and post-judgment interest on all sums awarded; A post-verdict and post-judgment accounting for any infringement the 989 Patent

and the 974 Patent not otherwise covered by a damages award and the requested injunctive relief; j. statute; and k. circumstances. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Pioneer respectfully requests a trial by jury of any and all issues on which a trial by jury is available under applicable law. Dated: October 18, 2011 Respectfully submitted, WHITFIELD & EDDY, P.L.C. OF COUNSEL: Brian C. Swanson (pro hac vice pending) Adam K. Mortara (pro hac vice pending) Vincent S. J. Buccola (pro hac vice pending) BARTLIT BECK HERMAN PALENCHAR & SCOTT LLP 54 W. Hubbard Street, Suite 300 Chicago, IL 60654 Tel: (312) 494-4400 Fax: (312) 494-4440 brian.swanson@bartlit-beck.com adam.mortara@bartlit-beck.com vincent.buccola@bartlit-beck.com By: /s/ John H. Moorlach John H. Moorlach (AT0005484) 317 Sixth Avenue, Suite 1200 Des Moines, IA 50309 Tel: (515) 288-6041 Fax: (515) 246-1474 moorlach@whitfieldlaw.com Attorney for Plaintiff Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. Any such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper under the An award of attorneys fees under 35 U.S.C. 285 and any other applicable

-9-