Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. 39145
`
`ESTTA Tracking number: ESTTA25920
`
`Filing d9-t33
`
`02/14/2005
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Proceeding
`
`92043653
`
`Defendant
`Monsanto Technology LLC
`Monsanto Technology LLC
`§ 800 North Lindbergh Blvd.
`Saint Louis, MO 63167
`
`Monsanto Technology LLC
`Correspondence 800 North Lindbergh Blvd.
`Address
`Saint Louis, MO 63167
`
`Eiiéliélélillgiiillllélaléégiéfidléiléi;E){»§};i;;§}f;§l;§;1{};}$};1;{ii5f;§;1l;@iI;;l{$}}l;;§}.com
`Signature
`/Thomas L. Casagrandef
`Date
`02/140005
`
`Attachments
`
`2005_02_l4 Motion to Stay.pdf ( 66 pages )
`
`

`
`EXPRESS MAIL MAILING LABEL
`
`_
`NUMBER EL 831818900 US
`DATE OF DEPOSlTWFebruargft,W200§
`I hereby certify that this paper or fee is being deposited with the United States Postal Service "EXPRESS MAIL POST OFFICE TO
`ADDRESSEE" service under 37 C.F.R. § .10 on February 14, 2005 and is addressed to: Commissioner for Trademarks, 2900
`Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202-351
`a
`
`sigiiiéiiurei
`
`(
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Registration No.: 2,833,109
`Mark: GA21
`
`Registered: April 13, 2004
`
`SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`
`
`
`V.
`
`Cancellation No. 92043653
`
`MONSANTO TECHNOLOGY LLC,
`
`Registrant.
`
`MOTION TO SUSPEND PROCEEDINGS
`
`PENDING OUTCOME OF FEDERAL COURT LITIGATION
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 2.117(a) and Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Manual of
`
`Procedure (“TBMP”) § 510.02, Registrant Monsanto Technology LLC (“Registrant”) hereby
`
`moves to suspend this cancellation proceeding pending resolution of two ongoing federal court
`
`cases. In support of this motion to suspend, Registrant states as follows:
`
`1.
`
`Petitioner Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. (“Petitioner”) initiated this cancellation
`
`proceeding on September 1, 2004, seeking to cancel Registrant’s United States Trademark
`
`Registration No. 2,833,109 (“the ’ 109 Registration”) for the mark GA21. The ’ 109 Registration
`
`covers a “plant derived protein which confers in-plant tolerance to glyphosate herbicides.”
`
`DM7US\8 l 56720.vl
`
`

`
`The Delaware Federal Patent Case
`
`2.
`
`Registrant is currently involved in a case pending in federal court in Delaware
`
`against Syngenta Seeds, Inc. and Syngenta Biotechnology, Inc. These two Syngenta companies
`
`are, like Petitioner herein, business divisions of Syngenta AG. This federal court case is
`
`encaptioned Monsanto Company and Monsanto Technology LLC v. Syngenta Seeds, Inc., and
`
`Syngenta Biotechnology, Inc., Civ. No. 04-305 SLR (D. Del.) (hereinafter the “Delaware case”).
`
`3.
`
`In the Delaware case, Registrant asserts that Petitioner’s sister divisions are
`
`infringing U.S. Patent No. 4,940,835, entitled “Glyphosate Resistant Plants” (the “ ’835 patent”).
`
`(See Delaware Amended Complaint 111] 6-7, 9-11.)‘ The ’835 patent concerns a plant gene that
`
`confers tolerance in the plant to glyphosate herbicides. (See id.)
`
`4.
`
`In the Delaware case, Registrant seeks to enjoin Petitioner’s sister divisions and
`
`all those in privity with them from infringing the ’835 patent by making, using, selling or
`
`offering to sell products containing the gene taught by the ’835 patent that confers tolerance to
`
`glyphosate herbicides. (See id. at p. 4.) The defendants in the Delaware case have answered.
`
`(See Exh. B to Casagrande Decl.)
`
`The Illinois Federal Patent Case
`
`5.
`
`Petitioner’s sister divisions, Syngenta Seeds, Inc. and Syngenta Biotechnology,
`
`Inc. are also defendants in another pending patent case encaptioned DEKALB Genetics
`
`Corporation v. Syngenta Seeds, Inc, and Syngenta Biotechnology, Inc., Civ. No. 04C50323 (N .D.
`
`Ill.) (hereinafter the “Illinois case”).
`
`1
`hereto.)
`
`The Delaware Amended Complaint is Exhibit A to the Declaration of Thomas L. Casagrande, Exh. 1
`
`DM__US\8l56720.vl
`
`

`
`6.
`
`In the Illinois case, Petitioner’s sister divisions are alleged to infringe U.S. Patents
`
`Nos. 5,538,880, entitled “Method For Preparing Fertile Transgenic Corn Plants” (the “ ’880
`
`patent”) and 6,013,863, entitled “Fertile Transgenic Corn Plants” (the “ ’863 patent”).
`
`7.
`
`In the Illinois case, Petitioner’s sister divisions are alleged to infringe the ’880
`
`patent by “making corn containing genes that confer resistance to the herbicide glyphosate and
`
`importing into the United States, or offering to sell, selling, or using within the United States,
`
`corn containing genes that confer resistance to the herbicide glyphosate made by the process of
`
`one or more claims 1-9 of the ’880 Patent.” (See Amended Complaint W 13-14, 16, ll-12.)2
`
`8.
`
`In the Illinois case, Petitioner’s sister divisions are also alleged to infringe the
`
`’863 patent by “making corn containing genes that confer resistance to the herbicide glyphosate
`
`and importing into the United States, or offering for sale, selling, or using within the United
`
`States, corn containing genes that confer resistance to the herbicide glyphosate made by the
`
`process of the ’863 Patent.” (See id.)
`
`9.
`
`In the Illinois case, the complaint asks the court to enter an injunction against
`
`Petitioner’s sister divisions and all those in privity with them from infringing claims 1-9 of the
`
`’880 patent and the claims of the ’863 patent. (See id. at p. 7.) Petitioner’s sister divisions have
`
`not yet filed an answer to the pending amended complaint in the Illinois case.
`
`The Delaware and Illinois Cases May Have a Bearing on This Case
`
`10.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 2.1 l7(a) states:
`
`Whenever it shall come to the attention of the Trademark Trial and Appeal
`Board that parties to a pending case are engaged in a civil action which
`may have a bearing on the case, proceedings before the Board may be
`suspended until termination of the civil action.
`
`
`to
`
`The Illinois Complaint is Exhibit C to the Casagrande Declaration, Exh. 1.
`
`DMgUS\8l56720.vl
`
`3
`
`

`
`See also General Motors Corp. v. Cadillac Club Fashions Inc., 22 USPQ2d 1933, 1936-37
`
`(TTAB 1992); Marie Claire Album S.A. v. Kruger GmbH & Co. KG, 29 USPQ2d 1792, 1794
`
`(TTAB 1993); TBMP § 510.02(a) (“Ordinarily, the Board will suspend proceedings in the case
`
`before it if the final determination of the other proceeding will have a bearing on the issues
`
`before the Board.”) The rationale for this rule is that, “[t]o the extent that a civil action in
`
`Federal district court involves issues in common with those in a proceeding before the Board, the
`
`decision of the Federal district court is often binding upon the Board .
`
`.
`
`. .” TBMP § 510.02(a).
`
`11.
`
`The final determination in the Delaware and Illinois cases will have a bearing on
`
`this cancellation proceeding. Specifically, although the instant Petition is not a model of clarity,
`
`it appears that Petitioner alleges that Registrant’s GA21 mark is “descriptive and generic” for the
`
`plant gene identified in the description of goods and services “which confers in-plant tolerance to
`
`glyphosate herbicides.” (Petition W 5, 11.)
`
`12.
`
`Petitioner also alleges in this proceeding that Petitioner uses GA21 or a similar
`
`term in Petitioner’s advertising and “on the identical products of Petitioner.” (Id. 1] 7) (emphasis
`
`added). Thus, the primary asserted basis for Petitioner’s cancellation petition appears to be that
`
`it uses GA21 descriptively in connection with the sale of a plant gene “which confers in-plant
`
`tolerance to glyphosate herbicides.”
`
`13.
`
`Indeed, the very reason why Petitioner alleges that it would be damaged by the
`
`continued registration of GA21 is that “[c]ontinued registration of the Trademark will lead the
`
`public to conclude, incorrectly, that Registrant has superior rights to use the Trademark in
`
`conjunction with the sale ofplant traits or proteins for glyphosate tolerance to certain herbicides
`
`and other products, all to the damage of Petitioner .
`
`.
`
`. .” (Id. 1112) (emphasis added).
`
`DMvUS\8 l S6720.vl
`
`

`
`14.
`
`If the patentees in the either or both of the Delaware or Illinois cases prevail,
`
`Petitioner’s sister divisions and anyone in privity with them (such as other divisions of the same
`
`parent entity)?’ would have no right to make, use, or sell the goods identified in the ’ 109
`
`Registration, i. e., plants containing glyphosate resistant genes.
`
`15.
`
`Only a person “who believes that he or she will be damaged” by a registration has
`
`standing to bring a petition to cancel. 15 U.S.C. § 1064. Facts establishing standing “are part of
`
`a petitioner’s case and must be affirrnatively proved.” Lipton Indus, Inc. v. Ralston Purina Co.,
`
`670 F.2d 1024, 1028 (CCPA 1982). Standing to bring an action———like this one—based on
`
`allegations that the mark is merely descriptive of the goods in connection with which it is used,
`
`requires a petitioner to prove that it has a legal right to use the mark to describe its goods. E. g. ,
`
`Jewelers Vigilance Comm. v. Ullenberg Corp., 823 F.2d 490, 493 (Fed. Cir. 1987); Nobelle.com
`
`LLC v. Qwest Communications Int 'I Inc., 66 USPQ2d 1300, 1304 (TTAB 2003). Though this is
`
`not a stringent test, it cannot be met if Petitioner is enjoined by a federal court from making,
`
`using, or selling the very product it says GA21 describes.
`
`16.
`
`It is therefore clear that the Delaware and Illinois cases may indeed have a bearing
`
`on this proceeding:
`
`the outcome of these cases may take away the basis for Petitioner to claim it
`
`is damaged by the continued registration of GA21, thus exposing Petitioner’s lack of standing to
`
`contest the ’ 109 registration. There is no good reason to waste the parties’ time and money, as
`
`well as the Board’s time and resources, to rule on whether “GA21” is descriptive of, or generic
`
`for, a product that Petitioner may well have no legal right to make or sell.
`
`3
`
`. upon the parties to the
`.
`. is binding .
`.
`See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d) (“Every order granting an injunction .
`action, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and upon those persons in active concert and
`participation with them who receive actual notice of the order .
`.
`. .”) (emphasis added); see also Regal Knitwear Co.
`v. NLRB, 324 U.S. 9, 14 (1945) (“a decree of injunction not only binds the parties defendant but also those identified
`with them in interest, in ‘privity’ with them, represented by them or subject to their control”); Walling v. Reuter,
`321 U.S. 671, 674-75 (1944) (an injunction binds any related company under same control as named party);
`
`DM_US\8 l 56720.vl
`
`

`
`.__j%.._j__
`
`WHEREFORE, Registrant prays that this petition to cancel be suspended pending the outcome
`
`of the Delaware and Illinois federal cases.
`
`Dated: February 14, 2005
`
`Fax: (713) 787-1440
`e-mail: casagrandet@howrey.com
`
`Attorneys for Registrant Monsanto Technology
`LLC
`
`Computer Searching Serv. Corp. v. Ryan, 439 F.2d 6, 9 (2d Cir. 1971) (an injunction would bind the subsidiary of
`the named party under rule 65(d)).
`
`DM_US\8l56720.vl
`
`

`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing MOTION TO SUSPEND
`
`PROCEEDINGS PENDING OUTCOME OF FEDERAL COURT LITIGATION has been
`
`served on February 14, 2005 by e-mail and first class mail, postage prepaid, on:
`
`James A. Zellinger, Esq.
`Trademark Counsel
`
`Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc.
`410 Swing Rd.
`Greensboro, N.C. 27409
`e-mail: jim.zellinger@syngenta.com
`
`
`
`Thomas L. Casa -
`
`
`Attorney
`rant Mons to Technology LLC
`
`
`DM_US\8 1 56720.vl
`
`

`
`Exhibit 1
`
`

`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Registration No.: 2,833,109
`Mark: GA21
`
`Registered: April 13, 2004
`
`
` SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, INC.,
`
`
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`Cancellation No. 92043653
`
`MONSANTO TECHNOLOGY LLC,
`
`Registrant.
`
`DECLARATION OF THOMAS L. CASAGRANDE IN SUPPORT
`
`OF MOTION TO SUSPEND PROCEEDINGS PENDING
`OUTCOME OF FEDERAL COURT LITIGATION
`
`I, THOMAS L. CASAGRANDE, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, hereby declare:
`
`1.
`
`I am a partner in the law firm of Howrey Simon Arnold & White, LLP, attorneys
`
`of record for Registrant, Monsanto Technology LLC.
`
`I am a member in good standing of the
`
`State Bars of Texas and Connecticut. This declaration is based on my own personal knowledge
`
`2.
`
`My law firm, Howrey Simon Arnold & White LLP, is also counsel of record for
`
`the plaintiffs in the following pending federal court cases: Monsanto Company and Monsanto
`
`Technology LLC v. Syngenta Seeds, Inc., and Syngenta Biotechnology, Inc., Civ. No. 04-305
`
`SLR (D. Del.) (the “Delaware case”); and DEKALB Genetics Corporation v. Syngenta Seeds,
`
`Inc, and Syngenta Biotechnology, Inc., Civ. No. 04C50323 (N .D. Ill.) (the “Illinois case”)
`
`3.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the current complaint in
`
`the Delaware case.
`
`4.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the current answer in
`
`the Delaware case.
`
`

`
`5.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the current complaint in
`
`the Illinois case.
`
`I declare under penalty ofperjury that the foregoing is true and corre
`
` Dated: February 14, 2005
`
`

`
`Exhibit A
`
`

`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`' *7
`
`MONSANTO COMPANY and
`
`MONSANTO TECHNOLOGY LLC,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`SYNGENTA SEEDS, INC.; and
`SYNGENTA BIOTECHNOLOGY, INC.
`
`Defendants.
`
`\/g/Q/\/\/\/%\/\&%
`
`C. A. No. 04-305 SLR
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`Plaintiffs, Monsanto Company and Monsanto Technology LLC (collectively
`
`“Monsanto”), file this first amended complaint against Defendants Syngenta Seeds, Inc.
`
`and Syngenta Biotechnology, Inc. (collectively “Defendants”) prior to any responsive
`
`pleading by Defendants and alleges as follows:
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiffs Monsanto‘ Company and Monsanto Technology LLC are both
`
`corporations organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with their
`
`principal places of business at 800 North Lindbergh Boulevard, St. Louis, Missouri
`
`63 167.
`
`2.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant, Syngenta Seeds, Inc. (“Syngenta Seeds”),
`
`is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its
`
`offices at 7500 Olson Memorial Highway, Golden Valley, Minnesota 55427
`
`3.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant, Syngenta Biotechnology, Inc. (“Syngenta
`
`Biotechnology”), is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of
`
`

`
`THE INFRINGEMENT
`
`8.
`
`Monsanto realleges and incorporates by reference each of paragraphs 1-7 above
`
`as set forth herein.
`
`9.
`
`Monsanto has been the owner of all right, title and interest to and under United
`
`States Patent No. 4,940,835 entitled “Glyphosate-Resistant Plants.” U.S. Patent
`
`4,940,835 (“the ‘835 Patent”) was duly and legally issued to Monsanto on July 10, 1990.
`
`A copy of the patent is attached as Exhibit 1 to this Complaint.
`
`10.
`
`Defendants do not have any license or other right to practice the claims of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 4,940,835.
`
`11.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendants have infringed and continue to infringe
`
`one or more claims of the ‘835 Patent by at least making, using, selling and offering for
`
`sale corn products exhibiting resistance to glyphosate herbicides, and will continue to do
`
`so unless enjoined by this Court.
`
`12.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendants have infringed one or more of the
`
`claims of the ‘835 Patent by at least inducing others and contributing to the infringement
`
`by others.
`
`13.
`
`Defendants’ acts of infringement of the ‘835 Patent, upon information and belief,
`
`have been carried out in deliberate and willful disregard of Monsanto’s patent rights.
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`14.
`
`Pursuant to Rule 38(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., Plaintiffs request a trial by jury.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREBY PLAINTIFFS PRAY FOR THE FOLLOWING RELIEF:
`
`A.
`
`A judgment that Defendants have infringed the ‘835 Patent;
`
`

`
`Delaware, with offices located at 3054 Cornwallis Road, Research Triangle Park, North
`
`Carolina 27709-2257.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`4.
`
`This is an action for patent infringement arising under the Patent Laws of the
`
`United States, Title 35, United States Code § 1 et seq. Subject matter jurisdiction is
`
`proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338.
`
`5.
`
`Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400(b).
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`6.
`
`Plaintiff Monsanto is a leader in the development of crops that have been
`
`genetically engineered to express new traits of value to farmers, such as herbicide
`
`resistance. Products developed by Monsanto include com, soybeans and other crops
`
`containing genes that confer resistance to the herbicide glyphosate. Glyphosate is a
`
`commercial herbicide that kills plants by binding to a critical enzyme in the plant called
`
`“EPSPS.” Monsanto’s glyphosate herbicide is sold under the trademark Roundup® and
`
`the genetically engineered products made by Monsanto that have the glyphosate
`
`resistance trait are sold under the trademark Roundup Ready®. Roundup Ready®
`
`products have been a recognized commercial success. Since the introduction of Roundup
`
`Ready® crops in 1996, farmers have consistently increased the number of acres they
`
`plant in the United States with Roundup Ready® products.
`
`7.
`
`Recognizing the value of Monsanto’s glyphosate
`
`resistance technology,
`
`Defendants have attempted to make and use glyphosate resistant corn products and have
`
`conspired with others to make glyphosate resistant corn products in violation of
`
`Monsanto’s patent rights.
`
`

`
`B.
`
`A judgment that Defendants have willfully and deliberately infringed the ‘835
`
`Patent;
`
`C.
`
`A declaration by the Court that any making, using, selling or offering for sale by
`
`Defendants of any corn products that are within the scope of the ‘835 Patent
`
`would constitute an act of infringement of the ‘835 Patent;
`
`D.
`
`A preliminary and final injunction enjoining Defendants and all those in privy
`
`with it from infringing, from inducing infringement, and from contributing to the
`
`infringement of the ‘835 Patent by making, using, selling or offering for sale corn
`
`products that are within the scope of the ‘835 Patent;
`
`E.
`
`An award of compensatory and exemplary damages, but not
`
`less than a
`
`reasonable royalty, resulting from Defendants’ infringement, including allowance
`
`of multiplied damages based on Defendants’ willful and deliberate infringement;
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`An award of interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees; and
`
`Such other and further relief as this Court shall deem just and proper.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP
`
`John F. Lynch
`
`Susan K. Knoll
`
`Steven G. Spears
`HOWREY, SIMON, ARNOLD &
`WHITE, LLP
`750 Bering Drive, #400
`Houston, Texas 77057
`Telephone (713) 787-1400
`
`By:
`
`%
`
`Richard L. Horwitz (#224
`David E. Moore (#3983)
`Hercules Plaza, 6*“ Floor
`1313 N. Market Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Telephone (302) 984-6000
`
`Dated: June 9, 2004
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`
`638050
`
`

`
`EXHIBIT 1
`
`

`
`United States Patent [19]
`Date of Patent:
`Shah et al.
`[45] Jul. 10, 1990
`
`[111
`
`Patent Number:
`
`4,940,835
`
`
`
`. ” World
`
`Stalker et al., J. Biol. Chem (1985) 260:8 pp. 4724-4728.
`Science (1986) 231: 1360-1361.
`Biotechnology (1984) Nov., pp. 944.
`Cole et a1., Weed Research (1983) 23, 173-183.
`Rubin et al. Plant Physiol (1984)75, pp. 839-945.
`Guilley et al. ( 1982) “‘I‘ranscription of CA.MV DNA. .
`.” Cell 30: 763-73.
`Mazur et al. (1985) “Cloning Herbicide. .
`Biotech Rep 2: 97-108.
`Goodman et a1. (1987) “Gene Transfer in Crop.
`Science 236: 48-54.
`Amrheim et al. (1983) “Biochemical Basis For.
`FEBS Letters 157: 191-6.
`Najziger et al. (1984) “Selection & Characterization. . ."
`Plant Physiol 76: 571-4.
`Vauden Broeck et aL (1985) “Targeting of. . ." Nature
`313: 358-63.
`Koziel et al. (1984) “A Cauliflower Mosiac Virus. . .” J.
`Mol. Appl. Genet 2: 549-62.
`Rogers et a1 (1983) Appl. Environ Microbiol 46 : 37-43.
`Comai et al. (1983) Science 221: 370-1.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.”
`to
`
`.
`
`Primary Examiner--Charles F. Warren
`Assistant Examiner-David T. Fox
`Attorney, Agent. or Firm-Dennis R. I-Ioerner, Jr.; James
`W. Williams, Jr.; Larry R. Swaney
`
`ABSTRACT
`[57]
`This invention involves a cloning or expression vector
`comprising a gene which encodes 5-eno1pyruvylshiki-
`mate-3-phosphate
`synthase
`(EPSPS)
`polypeptide
`which, when expressed in a plant cell contains a chloro-
`plast transit peptide which allows the polypeptide, or an
`enzymatically active portion thereof, to be transported
`from the cytoplasm of the plant cell into a chloroplast in
`the plant cell, and confers a substantial degree of gly-
`phosate resistance upon the plant cell and plants regen-
`erated therefrom.
`
`The EPSPS coding sequence may be ligated to a strong
`promoter, such as the 35S promoter from cauliflower
`mosaic _virus, to create a chimeric gene. Such genes can
`be inserted into plant transformation vectors, and subse-
`quently introduced into plant cells. Plant cells trans-
`formed using such genes and plants regenerated there-
`from have been shown to exhibit a substantial degree of
`glyphosate resistance.
`
`59 Claims, 8 Drawing Sheets
`
`we
`
`use
`
`asand
`
`so:\-
`
`3usIads1v1ua1ova
`
`lNV1dlsou-ll.I.dN-sou-
`(um)!
`
`anNOIM
`
`
`
`manon!nousLuisaBasel:
`
`asvanu'av:v‘Inno:‘man
`
`lufla
`
`I!ma
`
`um
`
`
`
`9494:uoloaunalvoumu1-Muolosuam.5‘IH0::ml:
`
`
`
`[54]
`[751
`
`[73]
`[21]
`[22]
`
`[53]
`
`[51]
`
`[52]
`
`[53]
`
`[56]
`
`GLYPHOSATE-RESISTANT PLANTS
`
`Inventors: Dilip M. Shah, Creve Coeur, Stephen
`G. Rogers, Chesterfield; Robert B.
`I-Iorseh; Robert T. Fraley, both St.
`Louis, all of Mo.
`Monsanto Company, St. Louis, Mo.
`879,814
`Jul. 7, 1986
`
`Assignee:
`Appl. No.:
`Filed:
`
`Related U.S. Application Data
`Continuation-in-part of Ser. No. 792,390, Oct. 29. 1985,
`abandoned. which is a continuation-in-part of Ser. No.
`763,482, Aug. 7, 1985, abandoned
`Int. Cl.5 ...................... A01H 1/04; C12N 15/00;
`C12N 5/00; C07H 15/12
`U.S. CI. ................................. 800/205; 435/172.3;
`435/240.4; 435/320; 536/27; 935/35; 935/47;
`935/48; 935/64; 935/67; 800/1316. 44;
`800/DIG. 43; 800/DIG. 26; 800/DIG. 14;
`800/DIG. 17; 800/DIG. 63; 800/DIG. 27;
`800/DIG. 24; 800/230; 800/DIG. 67
`Field of Search ...................... 435/ 172.3, 68, 317,
`435/240, 240.4, 320; 536/27; 47/58; 800/1
`References Cited
`
`U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS
`
`4,535,060 8/I985 Comai ................................. 435/317
`4,769,061
`9/1988 Cornai ............................ 71/86
`FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS
`
`.............. 935/14
`0115673 8/1984 European Pat. OE.
`OTHER PUBLICATIONS
`
`Smart et al., J. of Biol. Chem (1985) 260, 30, pp.
`16338-16346.
`Lee, T. T., J. Plant Growth Regal (1982) 1:37-48.
`Jensen, R. A., Physiol. Plant (1985) 66:164-168.
`Rubin et al., Plant Phyxiol. (1982) 70, 833-839.
`Mousdale et a1., Planta (1985) 163:241-249.
`’dAmato, T. A., et aL, Planta (1984) 162:104-108.
`Rothe, G. M., et al. Planta (1983) l57:358-366.
`Singh et al., Arch. ofBiochem & Bioph. (1985) 243:2 pp.
`374-384.
`Saijo et a1., Agric. Biol. Chem (1979) 43 (7) pp.
`1427-1432.
`Schmidt et al., P.1V.A.S. (1983) 80, 2632-2636.
`
`'1!933 H014!
`EBVDHN.Ididi
`'dVOGBLVONHII.
`LUISMI154!
`
`EP
`
`5
`
`SONIIdfldilAfl'9
`
`E29
`5
`5
`
`3
`
`is
`-
`B
`§
`
`it
`5
`
`E
`2
`
`

`
`US. Patent .
`
`Jul. 10, 1990
`
`Sheet '1 of8
`
`4,940,835
`
`1. SUSPENSION CULTURE OF MP4 PETUNIA CELLS
`
`2. CONTACT WITH LOW LEVEL OF GLYPHOSATE
`AND CULTURE SURVIVING CELLS
`
`3. SLOWLY INCREASE LEVEL OF GLYPHOSATE, ISOLATE
`HIGHLY RESISTANT (Gr ) CELLS, MP4 - G
`
`
`
`4. PURIFY EPSPS
`PROTEIN; DETERMINE AMINO
`ACID SEQUENCE
`
`
`
`6. CREATION OF cDNA
`FROM PETUNIA mRNA
`
`_
`
`
`
`7. INSERT CDNA INTO
`
`CLONING VECTORS
`
`
`
`5. CREATE RADIOACTIVE DNA
`PROBES WHICH COULD ENCODE
`THE MINO ACID SEQUENCE
`
`
`
`I
`
`8. USE PROBES TO ISOLATE A CLONING VECTOR
`HAVING AN EPSPS GENE IN INSERTED FRAGMENT
`
`-
`
`9. DETERMINE SEQUENCE OF EPSPS GENE, IDENTIFY
`CLEAVAGE SITES THAT ALLOW PROMOTER TO BE
`REMOVED FROM CODING SEQUENCE
`
`10. REPLACE EPSPS PROMOTER WITH STRONGER CaMV 35S .
`PROMOTER, TO CREATE CHIMERIC GENE
`
`11. INSERT CHIMERIC GENE INTO DISARMED Ti VECTOR,
`USE VECTOR TO INSERT THE GENE INTO PLANT CELLS
`
`12. GROW TRANSFORMED PLANT CELLS ON GLYPHOSATE
`
`13. REGENERATE AND TEST DIFFERENTIATED PLANTS
`
`FIGURE 1
`
`

`
`US. Patent
`
`Jul. 10, 1990
`
`Sheet 2 of 3
`
`4,940,835
`
`BACTERIAL
`Spc / Str 3
`
`Nos - NPTII - Nos
`(PLANT Kenfi)
`
`‘\\§?3
`
`353
`
`pMON 530
`CaMV
`
`
`N03 3.
`
`Bgm
`Pstl
`Eco RI
`
`
`
`pm? 322
`
`om.
`
`Pst
`
`BGLII,
`Eco RI.
`1.4 ‘L’l‘g’A=SE
`
`.
`
`Bglll
`5. I
`
`|
`
`5'
`N-T
`REGION
`
`CTP REGION
`
`Eco RI
`I
`
`l
`
`TRUNCATED
`EPSPS
`
`~
`
`’
`
`' EPSPS INSERT FROM
`pMON 9531
`
`PMON 536
`
`Eco RI,
`CAP,
`74 '-"-‘A55
`
`-
`
`Eco RI
`
`Eco RI
`
`|-—————o———1
`TRUNCATED
`POLY-A
`EPSPS
`TAIL
`EPSPS lNSERT FROM
`pMON 9555
`
`LINKER
`
`Nos
`\
`
`DELETED
`
`p3R 322
`
`Spc I Str 3
`
`tms trnr tml OCS
`
`
`
`Kan R
`
`pGV3III SE
`
`om.
`
`Eco R
`V’
`CaMV / EPSPS / NOS
`
`Pstl
`E°° RI
`
`Vir
`
`occ
`
`ori
`HELPER PLASMID
`430 Kb
`
`FIGURE 2
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent
`
`Jul. 10, 1990
`
`Sheet 3 of 3
`
`4,940,835
`
`1 GAATTCCCTCAATCTTTACTTTCAAGAATGGCACAAATTAACAACATGGCACAAGGGATA w
`MetAIaGlnIleAsnAsnHetAlaGlnGly1Ie
`
`H CAAACCCTTAATCCCAATTCCAATTTCCATIAACCCCAAGTTCCTAAATCTTCAAGTTTT
`GlnThrLeuAsnProAsn5erAsnPheHisLysProGlnValProLysSerSerSerPhe
`
`1m
`
`1m CTTGTTTTTGGATCTAAAAAACTGAAAAATTCAGCAAATTCTATGTTGGTTTTGAAAAAA 1%
`LeuVa|PheGlySerLysLysLeuLysAsnSerAlaAsnserMetLeuVa|LeuLysLys
`
`1m GATTCAATTTTTATGCAAAAGTTTTGTTCCTTTAGGATTTCAGCATCAGTGGCTACAGCA M0
`Aspsetll ePheMet GI nLys PheCysSerFheAr gll eSer Al aSerVai Al aThrA| a
`
`2M CAG
`Gln
`
`FIGURE 3
`
`

`
`4,940,835
`Sheet 4 of8
`_
`Jul. 10,1990
`US. Patent
`-1 GAATTCCCTCAATCTTTACTTTCAAGAATGGCACAAATTAACAACATGGCTCAAGGGATA
`w
`HetA|aG|nlleAsnAsnHetAIaGlnGlyIle
`
`m CAAACCCTTAATCCCAATTCCAAITTCCATAAACCCCAAGTTCCTAAATCTTCAAGTTTT
`G|nThrL:uAsnProAsnSerAsnPheHIsLysProGInVaIProLysSerSerSerPhe
`
`1m CTTGTTTTTGGATCTAAAAAACTGAAAAATTCAGCAAATTCTATGTTGGTTTTGAAAAAA
`LeuVa|PheGly5erLysLysLeuLysAsnSerA|aAsnSerletLeuVa|LeuLysLys
`
`1m GATTCAATTTTTATGCAAAAGTTTTGTTCCTTTAGGAITTCAGCATCAGTGGCTACAGCA
`AspserllePhelelG|nLysPh:CysSerPheArglIeSerAIa5erValAIaThrAIa
`}--->mature EPSPS
`
`H1CAGAAGCCTTCTGAGATAGTGTTGCAACCCATTAAAGAGATTTCAGGCACTGTTAAATTG
`GInLysPIoSerGlul|eValLeuGlnProll:LysG|uI|eSerGlyThrVa|LysLeu
`
`M1CCTGGCTCTAAATCATTATCTAATAGAATTCTCCTTCTTGCTGCCTTATCTGAAGGAACA
`ProGlySerlysSerLeuSerAsnArgIleLeuLeuLeuAla AlaLeuSerGluGlyThr
`
`1m
`
`1%
`
`ZM
`
`mm
`
`am
`
`$1ACTGTGGTTGACAATITACTAAGTAGTGATGATATICATTACATGCTTGGTGCCTTGAAA
`
`4»
`
`ThrvalValAspAsnLeuLeuSerSerAspA;pIIeqisTyrIetLeuG|yAlaLeuLys
`
`Afl ACACTTGGACTGCATGTAGAAGAAGATAGTGCAAACCAACGAGCTGTTGTTGAAGGTTGT M
`ThrLeuGlyLeuHisVaIGIuGluAspSerA|aAsnGlnArgA|aVa|ValGluG|yCys
`
`M GGTGGGCTTTTCCCTGTTGGTAAAGAGTCCAAGGAAGAAATTCAACTGTTCCTTGGAAAT
`GlyG|yLeuPheProVa|GlyLysGluSerLysGIuGlulleG|nLeuPheL:uGIyAsn
`
`M1 GCAGGAACAGCAATGCGGCCACTAACAGCAGCAGTTACTGTAGCTGGTGGAAATTCAAGG
`Al:GIyThrAIaHe1ArgProLeuThrAlaAlaVa|ThrValAlaGlyGIyAsn$erArg
`
`W1 TATGTACTTGATGGAGTTCCTCGAATGAGAGAGAGACCAATTAGTGATTTGGTTGATGGT
`TyrVaILeuAspGIyValPtaArgletArgGluArgProlIeSerAspLeuValAspGly
`
`$1 CTTAAACAGCTTGGTGCAGAGGTTGATTGTTTCCTTGGTACGAAATGTCCTCCTGTTCGA
`LeuLysGlnLeuGIyAIaGluVaIAspCysPheLeuG|yThvLysCysProProVaIA1g
`
`SN
`
`am
`
`aw
`
`73
`
`an ATTGTCAGCAAGGGAGGTCTTCCTGGAGGGAAGGTCAAGCTCTCTGGATCCATTAGCAGC M
`IIeVaISerLysGlyGlyLeuProGlyGIyLysValLysLeuSerGlySer!leSerSer
`
`NM CAATACTTGACTGCTCTGCTTATGGCTGCTCCACTGGCTTIAGGAGATGTGGAGATTGAA
`GlnTyrLeuThrA|aLeuLeuIetAlaAlaPIoLeuAlaLeuGlyAspVaIGlullefilu
`
`M1 ATCATTGACAAACTAATTAGTGTACCTTATGTCGAGATGACATTGAAGTTGATGGAGCGA
`IlelleAspLysLeuIleSerVaIP:oTyrVaIGIuHetThrLeuLysLeuMelGIuArg
`
`KN TTTGGTATTTCTGTGGAGCACAGTAGTAGCTGGGACAGGTTCTTTGTCCGAGGAGGTCAG
`FheGlyIl:SerVI|GIuHisSerSerSerTrpAspArgFhePheVaIArgGlyGlyGln
`
`IN AAATACAAGTCTCCTGGAAAAGCTTTTGTCGAAGGTGATGCTTCAAGTGCTAGCTACTTC
`Ly:TyrLysserProG|yLysAIaPneVaIGIuGIyAspAIaSerSerAI:serTyrPhe
`
`mm TTGGCTGGTGCAGCAGTCACAGGTGGAACTATCACTGTTGAAGGTTGTGGGACAAACAGT
`LeuAlaGlyA|aAlaVaIThrGIyGlyThrlleThtValGIuG|yCysGlyThrAsnSer
`
`1NM TTACAGGGGGATGTCAAATTTGCTGAGGTACTTGAAAAAATGGGAGCTGAAGTTACGTGG
`LguGlnG|ylspvalLysPheAIaG|uVaILeuG|uLysIelG|yAlaGluVn|ThrTrp
`
`H0
`
`an
`
`an
`
`1mm
`
`1m
`
`nw
`
`FIGURE 4a
`
`

`
`US. Patent
`
`Jul. 10,1990
`
`Sheet 5 of8
`
`4,940,835
`
`nu ACAGAGAACAGTGTCACAGTCAAAGGACCTCCAAGGAGTTCTTCTGGGAGGAAGCATTTG
`ThtG|uAsnServaIThrVaILysGlyProProArgSerSerSerGlyArgLysHisLeu
`
`1m: CGTGCCATTGATGTGAACATGAATAAAATGCCTGATGTTGCCATGACACTTGCTGTTGTT
`ArgA|aI|eAspValAsnMelAsnLysMelProAspValAlaMelThrLeuAIaVa|Vu
`
`um GCACTTTATGCTGATGGTCCCACAGCTATAAGAGATGTTGCTAGCTGGAGAGTCAAGGAA
`A|aLeuTyrAIaAspGlyProThrA|aI|eArgAspVaIAIaSetTrpArgVaILysGIu
`
`an ACTGAGCGCATGATCGCCATATGCACAGAACTTAGGAAGTTAGGAGCAACCGTTGAAGAA
`ThrGIuArgMetlIeAIaIIacysThrGluLeuArgLysLeuGIyAlaThrValGluelu
`
`1NN GGACCAGACTACTGCATAATCACCCCACCGGAGAAACTAAATGTGACCGATATTGATACA
`GlyProAspTyrCysI|ell:ThrFroProG|uLysLeuAsnValThrAspIleAspThr
`
`1M1 TACGATGATCACAGGAATGCCATGGCTTTTTCTCTTGCTGCTTGTGCAGATGTTCCCGTC
`Ty:AspAspHisArgAsnAlaMeIAIaPheSerLeuAIaAlacysAIaAspValProVu
`
`mm ACCATCAATGACCCTGGCTGCACGCGGAAAACCTTCCCTAACTACTTTGATGTACTTCAG
`ThrlleAsnAspProGlycysThrArgLysThrPheProAsnTyrPheAspVa|LeuGln
`
`EM CAGTACTCCAAGCATTGAACCGCTTCCCTATATTGCAGAATGTAAGTAAGAATATGTGAA
`GlnTyrSerLysHisEnd
`
`fifi GAGTTTAGTTCTTGTACAAGACAGGCTACGACTGCCTGGTATCAGAACCACAATGGGTTC
`
`16% CATTTCAGTTCAGAAGGGCATTCCAAGGCTTCGAACTCTTTACTTATTTGCGAGTGATGA
`
`WM AATGTATTTGTTAGAGTTGAGCTTCTTTTTGTCTTTAAGGAATGTACACTAATAGAGTTA
`
`1&M AGAATTACTAGTATGGGCCAGTGTAAGGAGTACTATTACTCTTTGCTTATTTTATTGATT
`
`mm GAGTTTTGTCAAGGATCTGGCTTTGTCAAGAATTACTGGTTAATTTTATTGACAATCTCA
`
`NZ TGTGTCTAAATGAAATTGTTTGATAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGAATTC
`
`1mm
`
`150
`
`1&0
`
`130
`
`1M0
`
`1mo
`
`um
`
`mm
`
`1&0
`
`nw
`
`WW
`
`WW
`
`WE
`
`198
`
`En ll
`
`En H
`
`Bum HI
`
`H'nl|ll
`
`Neal
`
`Eco RI
`
`
`
`0
`
`2”
`
`IN hp
`
`FIGURE 4b
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent
`
`Jul. 10,1990
`
`Sheet 6 of 3
`
`4,940,835
`
`(1 0099)
`
`FIGURE 5
`
`RIGHT BORDER
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent
`
`Jul. 10, 1990
`
`Sheet 7 of 8
`
`4,940,835
`
`
`
`:3:comm2023:3:Nwmm202::3:5mm2023:3:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`on.3...anE.,,:..,.,.328.Sn.
`
`.232"2.A:.33“.......:nH.-.IIIII!
`
`S23.2.8.2.8:.2.
`
`.8::8==..._:3.5.=..___=..._:E.3=...=...EcumEcum
`
`m_3ou_.__e<
`
`m_:3on_
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`___alEsau.:.....x......:_.=....:=.:..:.25-I=_un=:..un.-Esum=.aa
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ommaot
`
`EuIboQQNII_I
`
`so.SN5‘
`
`‘IIv‘I
`
`3-Sn3SnSo3332..
`
`T.
`
`=2mumuu=__u:m._E:Ds:...,S..
`
`coxml_________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent
`
`Jul. 10, 1990
`
`Sheet 3 of 8
`
`4,940,835
`
`pMON9721 (12Kb)
`
`RIGHT BORDER
`
`FlGURE 7
`
`

`
`1
`
`GLYPHOSATE-RESISTANT PLANTS
`
`4,940,835
`
`This application is a Continuation-in-Part of applica-
`tion, Ser. No. 792,390 filed Oct. 29, 1985, now aban-
`doned, which, in turn, is a Continuation-in-Part of appli-
`cation, Ser. No. 763,482, filed Aug. 7, 1985, now aban-
`cloned.
`
`BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
`
`The present invention relates to the fields of genetic
`engineering, biochemistry, and plant biology.
`N-phosphonomethylglycine has the following struc-
`ture:
`
`20
`
`0l
`
`0 on
`H
`l
`ll/
`I
`l-lO—C—CE;—N-CH1-P
`
`OH
`
`2
`periments have demonstrated that such a method would
`be efficacious in differentiated plants.
`Afier the filing date of U.S. Pat. No. 4,535,060, meth-
`ods and vectors were described which could-be used to
`insert foreign genes into plant cells (see, e.g., Fraley
`1983, Herrera-Estrella 1983, Bevan 1983, and PCT ap-
`plications W0 No. 84/0291? and 02920). In PCT appli-
`cation W0 No. 84/02913, methods were also described
`for creating chimeric genes having bacterial EPSPS
`coding sequences controlled by regulatory sequences
`derived from genes which are active in plant cells.
`Using these vectors and methodology, bacterial genes
`such as the mutant Salmonella EPSPS gene mentioned
`above can be manipulated and expressed in plant cells.
`The object of this invention is to provide a method of
`genetically transforming plant cells which causes the
`cells and plants regenerated therefrom to become resis-
`tant to glyphosate and the herbicidal salts thereof.
`SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
`
`30
`
`35
`
`45
`
`50
`
`This molecule is an acid, which can dissociate in aque-
`ous solution to form phytotoxicant anions. Several ani-
`onic forms are known. As used herein, the name “gly-
`phosa " refers to the acid and its anions. A mixture
`containing glyphosate as the active ingredient, formu-
`lated as its isopropylamine salt, is sold as a herbicide by
`Monsanto Company under the trademark ROUN-
`DU"P®. Nmnerous other salts
`have herbicidal
`properties, as exemplified by U.S. Pat. No. 3,799,758
`(Franz 1974) and various other patents. Compositions
`comprising N-phosphonomethylglycine and salt-fonn-
`ing cations which increase the solubility of the N-phos-
`phonomethylglycine in water are preferred.
`Those skilled in the art recognize that the scientific
`literature contains numerous papers suggesting several
`mod of action for inhibition of plant growth by gly-
`phosate. One proposed mode suggests that glyphosate
`inhibits an enzyme called 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-
`phosphate synthase (EPSPS); see, e.g., Amrhein 1980,
`Steinrucken 1980, Mousdale 1984, and Rubin 1982
`(note: a complete list of references is contained below,
`after the Examples). The EPSPS enzyme reportedly
`catalyzes the conversion of shikimate-3-phosphate into
`5-enolpyruvyl-shikimate-3-phosphate, an intermediate
`in the biochemical pathway for creating three essential
`aromatic amino acids (tyrosine, phenylalanine, and
`tryptophan); sec. e.g., Mousdale 1984. Rogers 1983
`reports that overproduction of EPSPS in E. coli con-