131391P.pdf   10/20/2014  Syngenta Seeds, Inc.  v.  Bunge North America, Inc.
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  13-1391
   U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Sioux City   
   [PUBLISHED] [Bye, Author, with Bright and Smith, Circuit Judges] 
   Civil case. The United States Warehouse Act did not authorize Plaintiff's 
   action against Bunge based on a claim Bunge violated its obligations of 
   fair dealing after it refused to accept corn grown with plaintiff's 
   genetically-modified corn seed sold under the name "Viptera," as nothing 
   in the text or legislative history of the Act indicates Congress intended 
   to authorize injured third parties to sue a breaching warehouse rather 
   than the surety; there is no implied private cause of action in 7 U.S.C. 
   Sec. 247(a); plaintiff was not a third-party beneficiary of the applicable 
   licensing agreement; plaintiff's Lanham Act claim is remanded for further 
   proceedings under the Supreme Court's recent decision in Lexmark Int'l, 
   Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 134 S. Ct 1377 (2014), to permit 
   the district court to determine in the first instance whether plaintiff 
   had standing to bring the claim under the zone-of-interests test and 
   proximate causality requirement. 
  
131391P.pdf   08/08/2014  Syngenta Seeds, Inc.  v.  Bunge North America, Inc.
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  13-1391
   U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Sioux City   
   [PUBLISHED] [Bye, Author, with Bright and Smith, Circuit Judges] 
   Civil Case - Lanham Act. Action by biotechnology company that produces 
   genetically modified corn may not sue warehouse for damages relating to 
   lost market share, profits and goodwill under the United States Warehouse 
   Act; private right of action is limited to actions with respect to bonds. 
   Neither the text of 7 U.S.C. sec. 247 nor the structure of the USWA 
   demonstrates that Congress intended to imply a private cause of action for 
   violations of a warehouse operator's fair treatment obligation. The 
   district court did not err in dismissing the third-party beneficiary claim 
   under the License Agreement. The district court's grant of summary 
   judgment on a claim of false advertising is remanded for reconsideration 
   in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static 
   Control Components, Inc. to determine whether Syngenta has standing to 
   bring a claim under the zone-of-interests test and proximate causality 
   requirement.