UPDATED 08/11/2026
Setting the Record Straight on the Corteva Litigation
Corteva Agriscience v. Inari Agriculture, a patent lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, is about competition and innovation in the seed industry and an industry giant using litigation to harm an emerging competitor and preserve its dominant position.
Case Details
Case: Corteva Agriscience LLC v. Inari Agriculture, Inc.
Case number: No. 1:23-cv-01059 (D. Del.)
Filed: September 27, 2023
Court: U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
Presiding Judge: Hon. John Frank Murphy
Nature of the case: Corteva’s lawsuit alleges Inari improperly obtained and exported patented seed samples. Inari denies any wrongdoing and counterclaims that Corteva’s conduct amounts to unfair competition and that five genetically modified (GM) patents, including patents covering Qrome corn and Enlist soybean, and more than 230 Plant Variety Protection (PVP) certificates, including PVPs covering Corteva’s Pioneer corn germplasm, are invalid.
Current status: Cross-motions for summary judgment argued May 29, 2026; jury trial scheduled to begin September 23, 2026.
At a Glance
Competition, not theft. Inari properly purchased the seed samples through the public American Type Culture Collection (ATCC) patent seed-depository system.
Why it matters. Corteva’s conduct impacts American farmers’ ability to benefit from the next generation of agricultural technology.
Government attention. The U.S. Department of Justice has warned that public access to patented biological material is essential to innovation and competition in the highly concentrated seed industry.
Trial ahead. Corteva’s claims and Inari’s counterclaims are scheduled for trial in September 2026.
Corteva patents are at risk. Inari’s counterclaims challenge the validity of key Corteva GM patents (Qrome and Enlist) and Plant Variety Protection (PVP) certificates (Pioneer germplasm).
Our Position
Inari supports strong intellectual property protection. Patent rights incentivize invention and discovery – they should not be weaponized to impede follow-on innovation or block lawful competition. Inari believes Corteva is attempting to exploit its patents beyond what the law allows.
Timeline of Events
September 23, 2026: Trial Set to Begin
Corteva’s claims and Inari’s counterclaims – including our challenge to the validity of key Corteva patents – are scheduled to go before a jury.
May 29, 2026: Summary Judgment Arguments Heard
Oral argument was held on summary judgment motions filed by both parties; decision pending.
May 11, 2026: U.S. Government Weighs In
The Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division filed a statement of interest in the case, emphasizing that reasonable access to patented biological material is essential to competition in the highly concentrated seed industry. The DOJ argued that intellectual property laws must balance rewarding innovation with enabling follow-on innovation and new market entry.
April 3, 2026: Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment Filed
Both parties file motions for summary judgment ahead of trial.
May 13, 2025: Court Rules that Inari’s Case Against Corteva Can Proceed
In an order on Corteva’s motion to dismiss, Judge John Frank Murphy allowed the majority of Inari’s counterclaims, as well as its core defenses, to proceed.
November 14, 2024: Inari Files Expanded Counterclaims
Following Corteva’s Second Amended Complaint, Inari filed an answer with expanded counterclaims alleging unfair competition and abuse of process by Corteva.
August 19, 2024: Inari Files Counterclaims
Following Corteva’s amended complaint in November 2023, Inari filed counterclaims challenging the validity and enforceability of Corteva’s patents and PVP certificates, putting Corteva’s conduct at issue and IP portfolio at stake.
September 27, 2023: Corteva Initiates Litigation Against Inari
Corteva filed a lawsuit in Delaware federal court alleging Inari improperly obtained and exported patented seed samples.
September 2021 – December 2022: Inari Discloses Seed Purchase Activities to Corteva
Inari informed Corteva that it had obtained ATCC patent deposit seeds and was conducting research and development work outside the United States.
FAQs
Why does Inari believe Corteva’s claims are baseless?
Inari believes Corteva filed this lawsuit to achieve through litigation what it couldn’t through innovation and fair competition.
Every seed sample at issue was properly and legally purchased through ATCC’s public patent-deposit system.
When Corteva deposited the seeds, it promised in its patents that the seeds would be available to the public after the patents issued. US patent laws and the Budapest Treaty also require that the seeds be available to the public without restriction after the patents issued.
Accessing seed deposits from ATCC is entirely legal and very common. In fact, Corteva itself has purchased and analyzed thousands of samples of competitors’ patent deposit seeds from ATCC in the past decade.
What are Inari’s counterclaims and what is at stake for Corteva?
Inari is challenging the validity of five Corteva genetically modified (GM) patents and more than 230 PVP certificates covering key product franchises, including key GM events in products such as Qrome corn, Enlist soybean and Herculex corn, and a large amount of Pioneer corn germplasm.
These patents have generated billions of dollars in revenue for Corteva, with combined royalties for Qrome corn and Enlist soybean estimated to total approximately $1 billion in 2025 alone, according to available data. Herculex corn is estimated to have generated as much as $4 billion in royalties during its product life cycle.
Their validity will be decided at trial.
Why does Inari believe Corteva is using this lawsuit as a form of unfair competition?
Corteva is the largest seed company in the world with revenues of over $17 billion a year, yet chose litigation over competition. Inari is an emerging new entrant to the market who is using new technologies to change the way the seed industry develops new products. It hasn’t sold any products that incorporate the IP Corteva says Inari infringes.
Asserting intellectual property rights beyond their proper scope discourages innovation, limits farmer choice and delays new technologies from reaching the market.
Have other parties weighed in on this case?
Yes. The DOJ’s Antitrust Division filed a Statement of Interest, emphasizing that access to patented biological material is essential to follow-on innovation and competition in the highly concentrated U.S. seed industry.
What is Corteva’s role in the seed industry?
Corteva is the largest seed company in the world and a leading supplier of corn and soybean seed in the U.S.
Concerns about concentration in the seed industry and its impact on competition have been raised by policymakers from all parties. In fact, the U.S. DOJ is investigating the seed industry, including Corteva itself, for potential anticompetitive behaviors.
What is ATCC?
ATCC is a nonprofit depository of biological materials where patent owners can deposit samples of their patented biological materials as required by the patent laws. Such materials must be made publicly available without restriction after a patent issues, as required by U.S. patent law and the Budapest Treaty. You can read more about ATCC here.
Inari purchased the seed samples at issue through this public system – the same system Corteva has used for years.
Did Inari steal from Corteva?
No. Inari has always respected intellectual property rights.
Every seed sample was lawfully purchased through ATCC’s public repository. When Corteva deposited the seeds, it promised in its patents that the seeds would be available to the public after the patents issued. US patent laws and the Budapest Treaty also require that the seeds be available to the public without restriction after the patents issued. And there is no legal claim that Inari improperly sold any seeds.
Inari believes in a robust IP framework to protect and promote innovation. However, the IP system should not be used to stifle competition, as Corteva is attempting to with this litigation.
Why does this case matter beyond Inari and Corteva?
The Corteva v. Inari case raises broader questions about competition and innovation in the seed industry and whether the industry leader can overreach in its patents and use litigation to preserve market power and delay the next generation of agricultural technology.
What Third Parties Are Saying
Dina Kallay – Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust Division, Department of Justice
July 8, 2026
“In Corteva v. Inari, the Division explained that the essential quid pro quo of the patent system means that ‘the public must receive meaningful disclosure in exchange for being excluded from practicing the invention for a limited period of time.’ As this matter also implicates an international patent regime, it highlights that U.S. companies receive reciprocal benefits and IP protections in foreign jurisdictions when we encourage the proper interpretation of our domestic IP laws.”
Diana Moss – Vice President and Director of Competition Policy, Progressive Policy Institute
May 19, 2026
“Patent protection is a huge way to maintain those integrated platforms and the dominance of the Big Ag biotech… My take is that Corteva is alleging that Inari…infringed their patents [that] they were accessing legally, publicly available biological material. That is not patent infringement.”
Paulina Jenney – Research Coordinator, Urban and Regional Food System Program, University of Wisconsin-Madison
May 19, 2026
“You can’t make a seed from scratch. You can’t look at a seed deposit or read an application and build your own version. [That’s why the Patent and Trademark Office] allows patent applicants to deposit seeds in order to enable their inventions, because they recognized that you just simply cannot fully describe a biological invention with words alone.”
Julie Dawson – Professor of Plant and Agroecosystem Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Kiki Hubbard – Researcher, Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Paulina Jenney – Research Coordinator, Urban and Regional Food System Program, University of Wisconsin-Madison
June 23, 2026
“The case is still winding its way through the legal process. But if the judge agrees, his decision could be consequential. For starters, competitors could begin to understand the strengths and weaknesses in seed varieties on the market and find ways to build on that innovation, which is precisely the type of activity the patent system was designed to encourage.”
Additional Resources
Department of Justice Statement of Interest
MLex – US DOJ to argue at high-stakes Corteva-Inari hearing in seed patent deposit row
AgroNews – DOJ Files Statement in Corteva-Inari Seed Case
Bloomberg Law – Corteva Seed-Tech Case Draws DOJ Caution on Broad Patent Rights
MLex – In Inari case, Corteva ignored role of competition in patent law, US DOJ says
Law360 – Viewing Seed Genetic Material Not Patent Infringement: DOJ
The Fence Post – DOJ files statement in Corteva v. Inari case
Bloomberg Law – Judge Allows Inari to Raise ‘Unclean Hands’ in Corteva Seed Case
Bloomberg Law – Inari Says Corteva Using Seed-Patent Suit to Stifle Competition
The Capitol Forum – The Checkbox That Could Break the Patent Bargain