Yes, there was such a case and it was totally bogus (I don't know what was the disposition). Monsanto's pollen was theirs to control. They chose not to control it. When they lost control of it and it crossed a property line, unless they were PAYING somebody to buffer their crop, they were either INFECTING Farmer "B" crops or augmenting them depending upon what Farmer "B" wants to do with HIS crops. In either case, Monsanto was interfering with the usual process belonging to Farmer "B," not the other way around. Farmer "B" did nothing to acquire Monsanto pollen. They bombed his place with it. As far as I am concerned, if they wanted to contain the deposition zone it they should pay Farmer "B" to do for the service, not penalize him for an infringement.
Further, "infringe" is an affirmative act; it requires both intent and an action by which to infringe. Farmer "B" did no such thing.
Small independent farmers faced wirh crushing legal defence costs dont have the luxury of the finer points of the law. Many have had to settle. I have some catching up to do on this issue but the courts have not sided with the independent farmers. And it had not been isolated cases. 300 farmers joined on a suit and lost on a technicality that their pleading was preemptive. In other words they have to wait to defend themselves individually
Reading your post 365, I see that you do understand what is being done to destroy natural agriculture in the courts, so why are you not an ardent supporter of prop 37?
All of the “farmer Bs” of North America are being systematically crushed with the assistance of the courts. They have insufficient wealth to play this billion dollar game, and thus have no recourse.