BREAKING: Corteva and Inari settle big-ticket seed patent dispute that attracted DOJ statement of interest

Context: In late 2023 Corteva Agriscience filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, accusing Inari Agriculture of infringing its IP with the withdrawal of patented genetic material from a biological depository for alleged commercial use. Inari argued the withdrawals were made for admissible research purposes. The case went to trial last week, with Corteva reportedly asking for more than $446 million in damages for alleged patent infringement on top of $877 million for unfair competition and breach of contract (September 23, 2026 Bloomberg article).

What’s new: The two parties filed a joint motion to dismiss the case with prejudice, stating that they’ve reached a settlement and release agreement. While most terms are confidential, as is typical, the proposed dismissal order implies that Inari has agreed to “destroy, or cause to be destroyed, all Corteva Biological Materials and Restricted Materials in the possession, custody, or control of Inari, its Affiliates, or any Third Party acting on Inari’s behalf” including “seeds, plants, plant parts, tissue cultures, DNA samples, biological materials”, and more. The text indicates that Inari has 30 days to destroy the materials, and another 15 days in which to make a declaration to that effect.

Direct impact: The proposed order was filed late on Sunday night, and now awaits a signature from District Judge John F. Murphy to be entered – after which the litigation will effectively be over. 

Wider ramifications: The case was notable for, among other things, the statement of interest submitted by the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ-ATR) earlier this year (May 14, 2026 ip fray article). While this was not an antitrust dispute per se, it did raise questions about the use of depositories for IP-protected biological material—which would be considered standard practice for biotech startups and researchers—and when such uses might cross over into IP infringement. With its statement of interest the DOJ-ATR underlined its support for a status quo where patented genetic material is readily available for research purposes; while this certainly didn’t amount to taking sides, it was arguably more favorable toward Inari’s position, than Corteva’s. Had the case gone further and reached final judgment, there could’ve been big implications for accessibility to IP-protected biological materials; but with the two sides’ apparent settlement, the status quo looks likely to persist.