Bayer AG & Monsanto v. Calder Farms: $256K Default Judgment Over Roundup Ready Soybeans
Bayer AG and Monsanto Technology LLC sued Missouri farmer Jimmy B. Calder and Calder Farms for unauthorized use of patented Roundup Ready 2 Xtend and XtendFlex soybean seed technology. After the defendants failed to respond, the court entered a default judgment of $256,016.66 plus daily accruing interest — resolving the case in 373 days without a contested hearing.
Monsanto and Bayer secure default judgment against Missouri soybean farmer
Filed on 6 November 2023 in the Missouri Eastern District Court before Judge Sarah E. Pitlyk, this infringement action saw Bayer AG and Monsanto Technology LLC assert two patents — US7838729B2 and US9944945B2 — against individual farmer Jimmy B. Calder and his operation, Calder Farms. The patents cover the core genetic trait technology underlying Roundup Ready 2 Xtend and XtendFlex soybean seed lines, which confer herbicide tolerance to dicamba and glufosinate in addition to glyphosate.
The case closed on 13 November 2024 when the court entered a default judgment in favour of plaintiffs, awarding $256,016.66 plus per diem interest of approximately 0.0246575% until the judgment is satisfied. Default judgment arises when a defendant fails to appear or respond to the complaint; the court accepted the plaintiffs’ factual allegations as admitted and assessed damages accordingly. No defendant law firm or agent appears on record, consistent with an uncontested proceeding.
The 373-day duration reflects the procedural steps required before a default can be entered and damages assessed, including proper service and notice requirements. The absence of any defence filing suggests Calder either lacked resources to mount a challenge or chose not to contest liability. What remains unknown from the public record is whether any licensing negotiations preceded the suit, the specific acreage or volumes underlying the damages calculation, and whether Bayer will pursue collection of the judgment through further enforcement proceedings.
Filing to Default Judgment in 373 days
373 days from filing to default judgment — typical for uncontested ag seed infringement actions
Default judgment entered: what the $256K award means for both parties
Default judgment: liability without a contested hearing
A default judgment is entered when a defendant fails to plead or otherwise defend against a complaint. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55, the court accepts the plaintiff’s well-pleaded allegations as true and proceeds to assess damages. Here, neither Jimmy B. Calder nor Calder Farms filed any responsive pleading, meaning the court never evaluated infringement on the merits — liability was effectively conceded by inaction.
FRCP Rule 55 default procedureBayer and Monsanto recover damages with ongoing interest
The plaintiffs secured a liquidated judgment of $256,016.66 — a meaningful deterrent-scale award for an individual farming operation. The addition of per diem interest at 0.0246575% (approximately 9% annualised) means the economic exposure grows daily until satisfied. For Bayer and Monsanto, the judgment validates the asserted patents’ enforceability and signals continued willingness to litigate against individual growers who save or misuse licensed seed.
Full damages award grantedCalder Farms faces an unchallenged monetary judgment
With no legal representation on record and no responsive filing, Jimmy B. Calder and Calder Farms bear the full $256,016.66 judgment plus compounding per diem interest. A default judgment is final and enforceable; Calder’s procedural options are limited to a Rule 60(b) motion to vacate — which requires showing excusable neglect or a meritorious defence — or an appeal. Neither path is straightforward at this stage, and enforcement actions such as wage garnishment or asset liens may follow.
Judgment enforceable immediatelyA continued enforcement signal for the ag-biotech sector
Bayer and Monsanto have a well-documented history of pursuing individual growers for seed patent violations. This judgment reinforces the pattern: patent holders in the agricultural biotech space actively monitor and litigate against unauthorised seed use at the farm level. For agrochemical competitors, seed distributors, and growers using proprietary trait technologies, the case underscores that patent enforcement extends to end-users, not just manufacturers or distributors.
Grower-level enforcement confirmedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Bayer AG | Company | Agrochemical and seed IP licensor — holder of US7838729B2 and US9944945B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Monsanto Technology, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Jimmy B. Calder | Individual | Missouri-based individual farmer and sole proprietor farm operation accused of seed patent infringementSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Calder Farms | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Daniel C. Cox | Attorney | Counsel for Bayer AGSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Thompson Coburn LLP (St Louis) | Law Firm | Representing Bayer AGSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Sarah E. Pitlyk | Judge | Missouri Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order — entering default judgment ‘in accordance with the Memorandum and Order entered this same date’ — indicates a prior written decision supported the damages quantum. The award of $256,016.66 was not stipulated by the parties but assessed by the court, suggesting Bayer and Monsanto submitted a damages calculation based on royalty rates, seed volumes, or statutory frameworks. The per diem interest provision ensures ongoing economic leverage pending full collection. Because no merits determination was made, the validity of US7838729B2 and US9944945B2 was never adjudicated in this proceeding.
US7838729B2 & US9944945B2 — Roundup Ready herbicide-tolerant soybean traits
US7838729B2 (application US11/758659) and US9944945B2 (application US14/539923) protect genetic trait technology enabling soybean plants to tolerate multiple herbicide classes — including glyphosate, dicamba, and glufosinate — without yield loss. These patents underpin Monsanto’s Roundup Ready 2 Xtend and Bayer’s XtendFlex commercial seed platforms. The stacked tolerance traits are commercially significant because they permit post-emergence application of dicamba-based herbicides, which are critical for managing glyphosate-resistant weed populations that have proliferated across US soybean-growing regions.
For the agricultural biotech sector, these patents represent a strategic chokepoint: any competitor seeking to commercialise multi-herbicide-tolerant soybeans in North America must design around or license this IP. Bayer’s willingness to enforce against individual growers — not just competing seed companies — signals that the company treats these assets as operationally critical revenue streams, not merely defensive positions. Companies developing next-generation trait stacks or competing herbicide-tolerance platforms should treat US7838729B2 and US9944945B2 as high-priority FTO subjects.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US7838729B2 and US9944945B2?
Any company developing, licensing, or commercialising herbicide-tolerant soybean seed technology — particularly traits conferring tolerance to dicamba, glufosinate, or glyphosate — should treat these two patents as mandatory FTO subjects. The patents have been actively asserted against end-users, confirming the patent holder’s enforcement intent across the value chain. Seed technology developers, trait licensors, agricultural biotech startups, and companies entering the North American soybean market are all within scope.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of US7838729B2 and US9944945B2 against your product’s trait specifications, identify relevant prior art, and flag design-around opportunities. Eureka also surfaces the broader Bayer and Monsanto patent families around these applications — giving your legal and R&D teams a complete picture of the IP landscape before product launch or licensing negotiations.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7838729B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar herbicide-tolerant soybean patent enforcement cases in US district courts
Cases involving Monsanto and Bayer seed patent assertions against growers and distributors in US district courts, particularly covering Roundup Ready and XtendFlex trait technology.
What this case signals for the agricultural biotech IP landscape
Bayer and Monsanto’s default judgment reinforces a deliberate enforcement posture against individual seed patent infringers.
Default judgments are a calibrated enforcement tool in ag-biotech
When seed patent holders sue individual growers, uncontested default judgments are a predictable outcome. They require minimal litigation cost while establishing a public, enforceable record. Competitors monitoring Bayer and Monsanto’s enforcement posture should note that default outcomes still carry full damages — the $256K award here is not a discounted settlement.
US7838729B2 and US9944945B2 remain active enforcement assets
The assertion of both Roundup Ready 2 Xtend and XtendFlex patents confirms Bayer continues to enforce its core herbicide-tolerance trait IP. Companies developing competing soybean trait technologies or seeking to enter herbicide-tolerant seed markets should conduct FTO analysis against this patent family before commercialisation.
Bayer v Jimmy — key questions answered
Bayer AG and Monsanto Technology LLC asserted US7838729B2 and US9944945B2, which cover herbicide-tolerant soybean trait technology underlying the Roundup Ready 2 Xtend and XtendFlex seed platforms. Both patents were asserted against individual farmer Jimmy B. Calder and Calder Farms in Missouri Eastern District Court.
The court entered a default judgment of $256,016.66 in favour of Bayer and Monsanto, plus per diem interest of 0.0246575% (approximately 9% annualised) accruing from the judgment date until the full amount is satisfied. The judgment was entered on 13 November 2024.
A default judgment was entered because neither Jimmy B. Calder nor Calder Farms filed any response to the complaint or appeared in the proceedings. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55, when a defendant fails to plead or defend, the court may enter judgment against them. The public record contains no defendant attorney or law firm, which is consistent with an entirely uncontested case.
No. A default judgment means the court accepted the plaintiff’s allegations as true due to the defendant’s non-appearance — it does not constitute a merits adjudication of patent validity or infringement. The validity of US7838729B2 and US9944945B2 was never contested or ruled upon in this proceeding. A separate challenge, such as an IPR at the USPTO, would be required to test patent validity.
The products at issue included Roundup Ready 2 Xtend soybean seed, XtendFlex soybean seed technology, and Bayer CropScience’s patented trait-bearing soybean varieties. These products incorporate proprietary genetic traits conferring tolerance to glyphosate, dicamba, and glufosinate herbicides, which are protected by the two asserted patents.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.