The Supreme Court only takes on a fraction of the cases that appeal to them. Given the 9-0 ruling and seemingly clearcut contract situation, does anyone know why they chose to take this case in the first place?
Because it answers the question whether replanting the seeds of a patented GMO plant counts as a permissible use under the patent exhaustion doctrine or whether it's patent infringement. Absent this ruling, a court might have concluded that harvesting and replanting was such a typical use of a plant that it could not constitute patent infringement.
(Also, what's the clear-cut contract situation? I don't think there is one in this case.)
