ruckelshaus
monsanto
argued
february
decided
june
federal
insecticide
fungicide
rodenticide
act
fifra
authorizes
environmental
protection
agency
epa
use
data
submitted
applicant
registration
covered
product
hereinafter
pesticide
evaluating
application
subsequent
applicant
disclose
publicly
submitted
data
provisions
amended
applicants
granted
period
exclusive
use
data
new
active
ingredients
contained
pesticides
registered
september
data
submitted
december
may
cited
considered
support
another
application
years
original
submission
applicant
offers
compensate
original
submitter
parties
agree
amount
compensation
either
may
initiate
binding
arbitration
proceeding
original
submitter
refuses
participate
negotiations
arbitration
forfeits
claim
compensation
data
qualify
either
period
exclusive
use
period
compensation
may
considered
epa
without
limitation
section
amended
authorizes
general
public
disclosure
health
safety
environmental
data
even
though
may
result
disclosure
trade
secrets
appellee
company
headquartered
missouri
inventor
producer
seller
pesticides
invests
substantial
sums
developing
active
ingredients
pesticides
producing
products
combine
ingredients
inert
ingredients
appellee
brought
suit
federal
district
injunctive
declaratory
relief
alleging
inter
alia
provisions
fifra
effected
taking
property
without
compensation
violation
fifth
amendment
provisions
violated
amendment
effected
taking
property
private
rather
public
purpose
district
held
challenged
provisions
fifra
unconstitutional
permanently
enjoined
epa
implementing
enforcing
provisions
held
extent
appellee
interest
health
safety
environmental
data
cognizable
property
right
missouri
law
property
right
protected
taking
clause
fifth
amendment
despite
intangible
nature
trade
secrets
many
characteristics
traditional
forms
property
moreover
found
kinds
intangible
interests
property
purposes
clause
pp
epa
consideration
disclosure
data
submitted
appellee
prior
october
september
effect
taking
epa
consideration
disclosure
certain
health
safety
environmental
data
constituting
trade
secret
state
law
submitted
appellee
two
dates
may
constitute
taking
certain
conditions
pp
factor
consideration
determining
whether
governmental
action
short
acquisition
destruction
property
gone
beyond
proper
regulation
effects
taking
whether
action
interferes
reasonable
expectations
respect
health
safety
environmental
data
appellee
submitted
epa
effective
date
fifra
amendments
october
appellee
reasonable
expectation
epa
keep
data
confidential
beyond
limits
prescribed
amended
statute
long
appellee
aware
conditions
data
submitted
conditions
rationally
related
legitimate
government
interest
voluntary
submission
data
exchange
economic
advantages
registration
hardly
called
taking
pp
prior
amendment
effective
october
fifra
silent
respect
epa
authorized
use
disclosure
data
submitted
connection
application
registration
although
trade
secrets
act
provides
criminal
penalty
government
employee
discloses
manner
authorized
law
information
revealed
course
official
duties
guarantee
confidentiality
submitters
data
absent
express
promise
appellee
reasonable
expectation
information
submitted
epa
october
remain
inviolate
epa
hands
possibility
substantial
federal
government
future
time
find
disclosure
public
interest
fortiori
trade
secrets
act
penalizes
unauthorized
disclosure
construed
sort
assurance
internal
agency
use
submitted
data
consideration
application
subsequent
applicant
registration
pp
however
statutory
scheme
effect
october
september
submitter
given
opportunity
protect
trade
secrets
disclosure
designating
trade
secrets
time
submission
explicit
governmental
guarantee
registration
applicants
confidentiality
exclusive
use
respect
trade
secrets
period
formed
basis
reasonable
expectation
epa
consistent
current
provisions
fifra
disclose
data
consider
data
evaluating
application
subsequent
applicant
manner
authorized
version
fifra
effect
actions
frustrate
appellee
reasonable
expectation
however
arbitration
pursuant
fifra
yield
compensation
loss
market
value
appellee
data
suffered
epa
consideration
data
connection
another
application
arbitration
yet
occurred
appellee
claim
government
taking
pp
taking
private
property
may
occur
connection
epa
use
data
submitted
appellee
october
september
taking
public
use
rather
private
use
even
though
subsequent
applicants
may
direct
beneficiaries
long
taking
conceivable
public
character
means
attained
congress
determine
congress
believed
provisions
eliminate
costly
duplication
research
streamline
registration
process
making
new
products
available
consumers
quickly
procompetitive
purpose
within
congress
police
power
regard
fifra
provisions
optimum
amount
disclosure
assure
public
product
safe
effective
determined
congress
courts
pp
tucker
act
remedy
available
provide
appellee
compensation
taking
property
may
occur
result
fifra
provisions
thus
district
erred
enjoining
epa
acting
provisions
neither
fifra
legislative
history
discusses
interaction
fifra
tucker
act
inferring
withdrawal
tucker
act
jurisdiction
amount
disfavored
partial
repeal
implication
tucker
act
fifra
provision
original
submitter
data
forfeits
right
compensation
later
submitter
use
original
submitter
data
fails
participate
comply
terms
negotiated
arbitrated
compensation
settlement
merely
requires
claimant
first
seek
satisfaction
fifra
procedure
asserting
tucker
act
claim
pp
tucker
act
available
remedy
uncompensated
taking
appellee
may
suffer
result
operation
challenged
provisions
fifra
appellee
challenges
constitutionality
arbitration
compensation
scheme
fifra
ripe
resolution
pp
blackmun
delivered
opinion
burger
brennan
marshall
powell
rehnquist
stevens
joined
joined
except
part
statement
filed
opinion
concurring
part
dissenting
part
post
white
took
part
consideration
decision
case
deputy
solicitor
general
wallace
argued
cause
appellant
briefs
solicitor
general
lee
acting
assistant
attorney
general
liotta
deputy
assistant
attorney
general
walker
jerrold
ganzfried
raymond
zagone
anne
almy
john
bryson
raymond
randolph
argued
cause
appellee
briefs
david
norrell
thomas
kuhns
wayne
withers
frederick
provorny
gary
dyer
david
barrier
kenneth
heineman
briefs
amici
curiae
urging
reversal
filed
american
association
advancement
science
et
al
thomas
mcgarity
american
federation
labor
congress
industrial
organizations
et
al
marsha
berzon
michael
rubin
laurence
gold
albert
meyerhoff
albert
woll
pesticide
producers
association
et
al
david
weinberg
william
weissman
ppg
industries
thomas
truitt
david
berz
jeffrey
liss
briefs
amici
curiae
urging
affirmance
filed
abbott
laboratories
et
al
kenneth
weinstein
lawrence
ebner
american
chemical
society
et
al
william
butler
arthur
mckey
american
patent
law
association
donald
chisum
avco
alvin
shapiro
sathon
ralph
brown
mark
singer
sds
biotech
et
al
harold
himmelman
cynthia
lewis
stauffer
chemical
lawrence
ebner
john
ronan
iii
john
behan
justice
blackmun
delivered
opinion
case
asked
review
district
determination
several
provisions
federal
insecticide
fungicide
rodenticide
act
fifra
stat
amended
et
unconstitutional
provisions
issue
authorize
environmental
protection
agency
epa
use
data
submitted
applicant
registration
pesticide
evaluating
application
subsequent
applicant
disclose
publicly
submitted
data
past
century
use
pesticides
control
weeds
minimize
crop
damage
caused
insects
disease
animals
become
increasingly
important
american
agriculture
see
pp
pp
pesticide
use
led
improvements
productivity
also
led
increased
risk
harm
humans
environment
see
although
federal
government
regulated
pesticide
use
nearly
years
fifra
first
adopted
stat
first
enacted
fifra
primarily
licensing
labeling
statute
required
pesticides
registered
secretary
agriculture
prior
sale
interstate
foreign
commerce
act
stat
legislation
also
contained
general
standards
setting
forth
types
information
necessary
proper
labeling
registered
pesticide
including
directions
use
warnings
prevent
harm
people
animals
plants
claims
made
efficacy
product
upon
request
secretary
applicant
required
submit
test
data
supporting
claims
label
including
formula
pesticide
version
fifra
specifically
prohibited
disclosure
information
relative
formulas
products
silent
respect
disclosure
health
safety
data
submitted
application
department
agriculture
fifra
responsibilities
transferred
newly
created
environmental
protection
agency
whose
administrator
appellant
case
see
reorganization
plan
fed
reg
mounting
public
concern
safety
pesticides
effect
environment
growing
perception
existing
legislation
equal
task
safeguarding
public
interest
see
congress
undertook
comprehensive
revision
fifra
adoption
federal
environmental
pesticide
control
act
stat
amendments
transformed
fifra
labeling
law
comprehensive
regulatory
statute
amended
fifra
regulated
use
well
sale
labeling
pesticides
regulated
pesticides
produced
sold
intrastate
interstate
commerce
provided
review
cancellation
suspension
registration
gave
epa
greater
enforcement
authority
congress
also
added
new
criterion
registration
epa
determine
pesticide
cause
unreasonable
adverse
effects
environment
stat
purposes
litigation
significant
amendments
pertained
procedure
public
disclosure
information
learned
procedure
congress
added
fifra
new
section
governing
public
disclosure
data
submitted
support
application
registration
section
submitter
data
designate
portions
submitted
material
believed
trade
secrets
commercial
financial
information
stat
another
section
prohibited
epa
publicly
disclosing
information
judgment
contained
related
trade
secrets
commercial
financial
information
event
epa
disagreed
submitter
designation
certain
information
trade
secrets
commercial
financial
information
proposed
disclose
information
original
submitter
institute
declaratory
judgment
action
federal
district
amendments
also
included
provision
allowed
epa
consider
data
submitted
one
applicant
registration
support
another
application
pertaining
similar
chemical
provided
subsequent
applicant
offered
compensate
applicant
originally
submitted
data
effect
provision
instituted
mandatory
scheme
amount
compensation
negotiated
parties
event
negotiations
failed
determined
epa
subject
judicial
review
upon
instigation
original
data
submitter
scope
provision
however
limited
data
designated
trade
secrets
commercial
financial
information
exempt
disclosure
considered
epa
support
another
registration
application
unless
original
submitter
consented
ibid
amendments
specify
standards
designation
submitted
data
trade
secrets
commercial
financial
information
addition
congress
failed
designate
effective
date
disclosure
schemes
congress
amended
provide
provisions
applied
data
submitted
january
stat
left
definitional
question
unanswered
much
litigation
centered
around
definition
trade
secrets
commercial
financial
information
purposes
provisions
fifra
epa
maintained
exemption
consideration
disclosure
applied
narrow
range
information
principally
statements
formulae
manufacturing
processes
series
lawsuits
however
firms
challenged
epa
interpretation
obtained
several
decisions
effect
term
trade
secrets
applied
data
including
health
safety
environmental
data
met
definition
trade
secrets
set
forth
restatement
torts
see
mobay
chemical
costle
supp
wd
mo
chevron
chemical
costle
supp
nd
cal
decisions
prevented
epa
disclosing
much
data
based
decision
register
pesticides
considering
data
submitted
one
applicant
reviewing
application
later
applicant
see
problems
regulatory
scheme
embodied
fifra
amended
see
see
generally
epa
office
pesticide
programs
fifra
impact
industry
reprinted
congress
enacted
amendments
fifra
effected
federal
pesticide
act
stat
new
amendments
included
series
revisions
provisions
fifra
fifra
amended
applicants
granted
period
exclusive
use
data
new
active
ingredients
contained
pesticides
registered
september
data
submitted
december
may
cited
considered
support
another
application
years
original
submission
applicant
offers
compensate
original
submitter
ii
parties
agree
amount
compensation
either
may
initiate
binding
arbitration
proceeding
results
arbitration
proceeding
subject
judicial
review
absent
fraud
misrepresentation
statute
provides
original
submitter
refuses
participate
negotiations
arbitration
proceeding
forfeits
claim
compensation
data
qualify
either
period
exclusive
use
period
compensation
may
considered
epa
without
limitation
iii
also
congress
added
new
subsection
provides
disclosure
health
safety
environmental
data
qualified
requesters
notwithstanding
prohibition
disclosure
trade
secrets
contained
provision
however
authorize
disclosure
information
reveal
manufacturing
quality
control
processes
certain
details
deliberately
added
inert
ingredients
unless
administrator
first
determined
disclosure
necessary
protect
unreasonable
risk
injury
health
environment
epa
may
disclose
data
representatives
foreign
multinational
pesticide
companies
unless
original
submitter
data
consents
disclosure
another
subsection
establishes
criminal
penalty
wrongful
disclosure
government
employee
contractor
confidential
trade
secret
data
ii
appellee
monsanto
company
monsanto
inventor
developer
producer
various
kinds
chemical
products
including
pesticides
monsanto
headquartered
louis
county
sells
domestic
foreign
markets
one
relatively
small
group
companies
invent
develop
new
active
ingredients
pesticides
conduct
research
testing
respect
ingredients
active
ingredients
sometimes
referred
products
generally
sold
directly
users
pesticides
rather
must
first
combined
inert
ingredients
chemicals
dissolve
dilute
stabilize
active
components
results
process
sometimes
called
products
firms
produce
products
called
formulators
see
opinion
district
case
monsanto
acting
administrator
environmental
protection
agency
supp
ed
mo
firm
produces
active
ingredient
may
use
incorporation
products
may
sell
formulators
may
monsanto
produces
active
ingredients
products
ibid
district
found
development
potential
commercial
pesticide
candidate
typically
requires
expenditure
million
million
annually
several
years
development
process
may
take
years
usually
long
company
expect
return
investment
every
pesticide
average
company
finally
markets
screened
tested
others
monsanto
significantly
success
rate
successfully
markets
every
chemicals
tested
ibid
monsanto
like
applicant
registration
pesticide
must
present
research
test
data
supporting
application
district
found
monsanto
incurred
costs
excess
million
developing
health
safety
environmental
data
submitted
fifra
information
submitted
application
usually
value
monsanto
beyond
instrumentality
gaining
particular
application
monsanto
uses
information
develop
additional
products
expand
uses
registered
products
information
also
valuable
monsanto
competitors
reason
monsanto
instituted
stringent
security
measures
ensure
secrecy
data
ibid
health
safety
environmental
data
monsanto
sought
protect
bringing
suit
district
found
much
data
contai
relat
trade
secrets
defined
restatement
torts
confidential
commercial
information
monsanto
brought
suit
district
seeking
injunctive
declaratory
relief
operation
provisions
fifra
provisions
fifra
related
monsanto
alleged
challenged
provisions
effected
taking
property
without
compensation
violation
fifth
amendment
addition
monsanto
alleged
provisions
violated
amendment
effected
taking
property
private
rather
public
purpose
finally
monsanto
alleged
arbitration
scheme
provided
ii
violates
original
submitter
due
process
rights
constitutes
unconstitutional
delegation
judicial
power
bench
trial
district
concluded
monsanto
possessed
property
rights
submitted
data
specifically
including
right
exclude
others
enjoyment
data
preventing
unauthorized
use
prohibiting
disclosure
found
challenged
provisions
give
monsanto
competitors
free
ride
monsanto
expense
ibid
district
reasoned
appropriated
monsanto
fundamental
right
exclude
effect
appropriation
substantial
found
monsanto
property
appropriated
private
purpose
interference
much
significant
public
good
appropriation
might
serve
district
also
found
operation
disclosure
provisions
fifra
constituted
taking
monsanto
property
cost
incurred
monsanto
property
permanently
committed
public
domain
thus
effectively
destroyed
viewed
district
significantly
outweighing
benefit
general
public
ability
scrutinize
data
seemed
believe
general
public
derive
assurance
needed
safety
effectiveness
pesticide
epa
decision
register
product
approve
label
finding
provisions
operated
effect
taking
property
district
found
compulsory
scheme
set
forth
ii
adequately
provide
compensation
property
taken
found
arbitration
provision
arbitrary
vague
reasoning
statute
give
arbitrators
guidance
factors
enter
concept
compensation
judicial
review
foreclosed
except
cases
fraud
district
also
found
arbitration
scheme
infirm
meet
requirements
art
iii
constitution
ibid
finally
found
remedy
tucker
act
available
deprivations
property
effected
district
therefore
declared
fifra
amended
federal
pesticide
act
unconstitutional
permanently
enjoined
epa
implementing
enforcing
sections
see
amended
judgment
app
juris
statement
noted
probable
jurisdiction
iii
deciding
case
faced
four
questions
monsanto
property
interest
protected
fifth
amendment
taking
clause
health
safety
environmental
data
submitted
epa
epa
use
data
evaluate
applications
others
epa
disclosure
data
qualified
members
public
effect
taking
property
interest
taking
taking
public
use
taking
public
use
statute
adequately
provide
compensation
purposes
case
epa
stipulated
monsanto
certain
property
rights
information
research
test
data
submitted
fifra
epa
predecessor
agencies
may
protected
fifth
amendment
constitution
app
since
exact
import
stipulation
clear
address
question
whether
data
issue
considered
property
purposes
taking
clause
fifth
amendment
never
squarely
addressed
applicability
protections
taking
clause
fifth
amendment
commercial
data
kind
involved
case
answering
question
mindful
basic
axiom
roperty
interests
created
constitution
rather
created
dimensions
defined
existing
rules
understandings
stem
independent
source
state
law
webb
fabulous
pharmacies
beckwith
quoting
board
regents
roth
monsanto
asserts
health
safety
environmental
data
submitted
epa
property
missouri
law
recognizes
trade
secrets
defined
comment
restatement
torts
property
see
lemay
valve
mo
app
harrington
national
outdoor
advertising
mo
luckett
orange
julep
mo
restatement
defines
trade
secret
formula
pattern
device
compilation
information
used
one
business
gives
opportunity
obtain
advantage
competitors
know
use
comment
parties
stipulated
much
information
research
test
data
monsanto
submitted
fifra
epa
contains
relates
trade
secrets
defined
restatement
torts
app
intangible
nature
trade
secret
extent
property
right
therein
defined
extent
owner
secret
protects
interest
disclosure
others
see
harrington
supra
supra
restatement
torts
supra
see
also
kewanee
oil
bicron
information
public
knowledge
generally
known
industry
trade
secret
restatement
torts
supra
individual
discloses
trade
secret
others
obligation
protect
confidentiality
information
otherwise
publicly
discloses
secret
property
right
extinguished
see
harrington
supra
milgrim
trade
secrets
trade
secrets
many
characteristics
tangible
forms
property
trade
secret
assignable
see
dr
miles
medical
john
park
sons
painton
bourns
trade
secret
form
res
trust
restatement
second
trusts
comment
scott
law
trusts
ed
passes
trustee
bankruptcy
see
uniservices
even
manner
congress
referred
trade
secrets
legislative
history
fifra
supports
general
perception
nature
discussing
amendments
fifra
congress
recognized
data
developers
like
monsanto
proprietary
interest
data
congress
reasoned
submitters
data
entitled
compensation
legal
ownership
data
conf
general
perception
trade
secrets
property
consonant
notion
property
extends
beyond
land
tangible
goods
includes
products
individual
labour
invention
blackstone
commentaries
see
generally
locke
second
treatise
civil
government
ch
gough
ed
although
never
squarely
addressed
question
whether
person
property
interest
trade
secret
admittedly
intangible
found
kinds
intangible
interests
property
purposes
fifth
amendment
taking
clause
see
armstrong
materialman
lien
provided
maine
law
protected
taking
clause
louisville
joint
stock
land
bank
radford
real
estate
lien
protected
lynch
valid
contracts
property
within
meaning
taking
clause
intangible
property
rights
protected
state
law
deserving
protection
taking
clause
long
implicit
thinking
conceivable
term
property
taking
clause
used
vulgar
untechnical
sense
physical
thing
respect
citizen
exercises
rights
recognized
law
hand
may
employed
accurate
sense
denote
group
rights
inhering
citizen
relation
physical
thing
right
possess
use
dispose
point
fact
construction
given
phrase
latter
general
motors
iv
determined
monsanto
property
interest
data
submitted
epa
confront
difficult
question
whether
taking
occur
epa
discloses
data
considers
data
evaluating
another
application
registration
question
constitutes
taking
one
wrestled
many
occasions
never
rule
governmental
acquisition
destruction
property
individual
constitutes
taking
courts
held
deprivation
former
owner
rather
accretion
right
interest
sovereign
constitutes
taking
governmental
action
short
acquisition
title
occupancy
held
effects
complete
deprive
owner
interest
subject
matter
amount
taking
general
motors
admitted
numerous
occasions
generally
unable
develop
set
formula
determining
justice
fairness
require
economic
injuries
caused
public
action
must
deemed
compensable
taking
kaiser
aetna
quoting
penn
central
transportation
new
york
city
accord
hodel
virginia
surface
mining
reclamation
inquiry
whether
taking
occurred
essentially
ad
hoc
factual
inquiry
kaiser
aetna
however
identified
several
factors
taken
account
determining
whether
governmental
action
gone
beyond
regulation
effects
taking
among
factors
character
governmental
action
economic
impact
interference
reasonable
expectations
pruneyard
shopping
center
robins
see
kaiser
aetna
penn
central
last
three
factors
direct
attention
find
force
factor
overwhelming
least
respect
certain
data
submitted
monsanto
epa
disposes
taking
question
regarding
data
reasonable
expectation
must
unilateral
expectation
abstract
need
webb
fabulous
pharmacies
find
respect
health
safety
environmental
data
monsanto
submitted
epa
effective
date
fifra
amendments
october
monsanto
reasonable
expectation
epa
keep
data
confidential
beyond
limits
prescribed
amended
statute
monsanto
notice
manner
epa
authorized
use
disclose
data
turned
applicant
registration
thus
respect
data
submitted
epa
october
monsanto
knew
period
years
date
submission
epa
consider
data
evaluating
application
another
without
monsanto
permission
also
aware
however
period
expired
epa
use
data
without
monsanto
permission
ii
iii
monsanto
aware
entitled
offer
compensation
subsequent
applicant
end
year
date
submission
iii
addition
monsanto
aware
information
relating
formulae
products
revealed
epa
federal
agency
consulted
revealed
public
hearing
findings
fact
issued
epa
necessary
carry
epa
duties
fifra
statute
also
gave
monsanto
notice
much
health
safety
efficacy
data
provided
disclosed
general
public
time
despite
provisions
statute
monsanto
chose
submit
requisite
data
order
receive
registration
hardly
argue
reasonable
expectations
disturbed
epa
acts
use
disclose
data
manner
authorized
law
time
submission
monsanto
argues
statute
requirement
submitter
give
property
interest
data
constitutes
placing
unconstitutional
condition
right
valuable
government
benefit
see
brief
appellee
monsanto
challenged
ability
federal
government
regulate
marketing
use
pesticides
monsanto
successfully
make
challenge
restrictions
burdens
must
bear
exchange
advantage
living
business
civilized
community
andrus
allard
quoting
pennsylvania
coal
mahon
brandeis
dissenting
see
lighting
missouri
particularly
true
area
pesticide
sale
use
long
source
public
concern
subject
government
regulation
monsanto
willing
bear
burden
exchange
ability
market
pesticides
country
evidenced
fact
continued
expand
research
development
submit
data
epa
despite
enactment
amendments
fifra
thus
long
monsanto
aware
conditions
data
submitted
conditions
rationally
related
legitimate
government
interest
voluntary
submission
data
applicant
exchange
economic
advantages
registration
hardly
called
taking
see
corn
products
refining
eddy
right
manufacturer
maintain
secrecy
compounds
processes
must
held
subject
right
state
exercise
police
power
promotion
fair
dealing
require
nature
product
fairly
set
forth
see
also
westinghouse
electric
nuclear
regulatory
prior
amendments
fifra
silent
respect
epa
authorized
use
disclosure
data
submitted
connection
application
registration
another
statute
trade
secrets
act
however
arguably
relevant
act
general
criminal
statute
provides
penalty
employee
government
discloses
manner
authorized
law
information
revealed
course
official
duties
determined
antileak
statute
aimed
deterring
government
employees
profiting
information
receive
official
capacities
see
chrysler
brown
rather
also
applies
formal
agency
action
action
approved
agency
department
head
ibid
true
prior
amendments
neither
fifra
provision
law
gave
epa
authority
disclose
data
obtained
monsanto
trade
secrets
act
guarantee
confidentiality
submitters
data
absent
express
promise
monsanto
reasonable
expectation
information
remain
inviolate
hands
epa
industry
long
focus
great
public
concern
significant
government
regulation
possibility
substantial
federal
government
thus
far
taken
position
disclosure
health
safety
environmental
data
concerning
pesticides
upon
focusing
issue
find
disclosure
public
interest
thus
respect
data
submitted
epa
connection
application
registration
prior
october
trade
secrets
act
provided
basis
reasonable
expectation
data
submitted
epa
remain
confidential
fortiori
trade
secrets
act
construed
sort
assurance
internal
agency
use
submitted
data
consideration
application
subsequent
applicant
registration
indeed
evidence
practice
using
data
submitted
one
company
consideration
application
subsequent
applicant
widespread
well
known
thus
respect
data
monsanto
submitted
epa
prior
effective
date
amendments
fifra
hold
monsanto
reasonable
expectation
epa
maintain
data
strictest
confidence
use
exclusively
purpose
considering
monsanto
application
connection
data
submitted
situation
may
different
however
respect
data
submitted
monsanto
epa
period
october
september
statutory
scheme
effect
submitter
given
opportunity
protect
trade
secrets
disclosure
designating
trade
secrets
time
submission
monsanto
provided
data
epa
period
understanding
embodied
fifra
epa
free
use
submitted
data
trade
secrets
considering
application
another
provided
epa
required
subsequent
applicant
pay
reasonable
compensation
original
submitter
stat
statute
also
gave
monsanto
explicit
assurance
epa
prohibited
disclosing
publicly
considering
connection
application
another
data
submitted
applicant
applicant
epa
determined
data
constitute
trade
secrets
stat
thus
respect
trade
secrets
submitted
statutory
regime
force
time
adoption
amendments
adoption
amendments
federal
government
explicitly
guaranteed
monsanto
registration
applicants
extensive
measure
confidentiality
exclusive
use
explicit
governmental
guarantee
formed
basis
reasonable
expectation
epa
consistent
authority
granted
fifra
amendments
disclose
data
consider
data
evaluating
application
subsequent
applicant
manner
authorized
version
fifra
effect
epa
actions
frustrate
monsanto
reasonable
expectation
respect
control
use
dissemination
data
submitted
right
exclude
others
generally
one
essential
sticks
bundle
rights
commonly
characterized
property
kaiser
aetna
respect
trade
secret
right
exclude
others
central
definition
property
interest
data
constitute
trade
secret
disclosed
others
others
allowed
use
data
holder
trade
secret
lost
property
interest
data
data
retain
usefulness
monsanto
even
disclosed
example
bases
develop
new
products
refine
old
products
marketing
advertising
tools
information
necessary
obtain
registration
foreign
countries
irrelevant
determination
economic
impact
epa
action
monsanto
property
right
economic
value
property
right
lies
competitive
advantage
others
monsanto
enjoys
virtue
exclusive
access
data
disclosure
use
others
data
destroy
competitive
edge
epa
encourages
us
view
situation
taking
monsanto
property
interest
trade
secrets
whatever
property
rights
monsanto
may
trade
secrets
brief
appellant
agency
argues
proper
functioning
comprehensive
fifra
registration
scheme
depends
upon
uniform
application
data
thus
said
supremacy
clause
dictates
scheme
vary
depending
property
law
state
submitter
located
argument
proves
much
congress
state
property
law
manner
advocated
epa
taking
clause
lost
vitality
stated
sovereign
ipse
dixit
may
transform
private
property
public
property
without
compensation
kind
thing
taking
clause
fifth
amendment
meant
prevent
webb
fabulous
pharmacies
beckwith
negotiation
arbitration
pursuant
ii
yield
compensation
monsanto
loss
market
value
data
suffered
epa
consideration
data
connection
another
application
monsanto
claim
government
taking
since
arbitration
yet
occurred
respect
use
monsanto
data
finding
actual
taking
premature
see
infra
summary
hold
epa
consideration
disclosure
data
submitted
monsanto
agency
prior
october
september
effect
taking
hold
epa
consideration
disclosure
health
safety
environmental
data
constitute
taking
monsanto
submitted
data
epa
october
september
data
constituted
trade
secrets
missouri
law
monsanto
designated
data
trade
secrets
time
submission
use
disclosure
conflicts
explicit
assurance
confidentiality
exclusive
use
contained
statute
period
operation
arbitration
provision
adequately
compensate
loss
market
value
data
monsanto
suffers
epa
use
disclosure
trade
secrets
must
next
consider
whether
taking
private
property
may
occur
operation
provisions
fifra
taking
public
use
recently
stated
scope
public
use
requirement
taking
clause
coterminous
scope
sovereign
police
powers
hawaii
housing
authority
midkiff
ante
see
berman
parker
role
courts
legislature
judgment
constitutes
public
use
extremely
narrow
midkiff
supra
berman
supra
district
found
epa
action
pursuant
provisions
fifra
effect
taking
private
use
rather
public
use
action
benefits
subsequent
applicants
forcing
original
submitters
share
data
later
applicants
true
direct
beneficiaries
epa
actions
provisions
fifra
later
applicants
support
applications
citation
data
submitted
monsanto
original
submitter
provisions
later
applicants
replicate
sometimes
intensive
complex
research
necessary
produce
requisite
data
however
rejected
notion
use
public
use
property
taken
put
use
general
public
midkiff
ante
rindge
los
angeles
block
hirsh
long
taking
conceivable
public
character
means
attained
congress
determine
berman
public
purpose
behind
provisions
clear
legislative
history
congress
believed
provisions
eliminate
costly
duplication
research
streamline
registration
process
making
new
products
available
consumers
quickly
allowing
applicants
registration
upon
payment
compensation
use
data
already
accumulated
others
rather
forcing
go
process
repeating
research
eliminate
significant
barrier
entry
pesticide
market
thereby
allowing
greater
competition
among
producers
products
cong
rec
remarks
leahy
procompetitive
purpose
well
within
police
power
congress
see
midkiff
ante
provisions
fifra
provide
disclosure
general
public
district
find
provisions
constituted
taking
private
use
instead
found
provisions
served
use
reasoned
epa
registration
must
determine
product
safe
effective
label
pesticide
statute
must
set
forth
nature
contents
purpose
pesticide
label
provided
public
assurance
needed
product
safe
effective
enough
us
state
optimum
amount
disclosure
public
congress
courts
decide
statute
embodies
congress
judgment
question
see
cong
remarks
leahy
observe
however
public
disclosure
provide
effective
check
decisionmaking
processes
epa
allows
members
public
determine
likelihood
individualized
risks
peculiar
use
product
see
remarks
douglas
costle
therefore
hold
taking
private
property
may
occur
connection
epa
use
disclosure
data
submitted
monsanto
october
september
taking
public
use
vi
equitable
relief
available
enjoin
alleged
taking
private
property
public
use
duly
authorized
law
suit
compensation
brought
sovereign
subsequent
taking
larson
domestic
foreign
commerce
fifth
amendment
require
compensation
precede
taking
hurley
kincaid
generally
individual
claiming
taken
property
seek
compensation
tucker
act
causby
taking
claim
founded
upon
constitution
within
jurisdiction
claims
hear
determine
yearsley
ross
construction
case
however
district
enjoined
epa
action
provisions
fifra
finding
tucker
act
remedy
available
taking
property
may
occur
result
operation
provisions
agree
district
assessment
tucker
act
remedy
lie
whatever
taking
may
occur
due
epa
activity
pursuant
fifra
determining
whether
tucker
act
remedy
available
claims
arising
taking
pursuant
federal
statute
proper
inquiry
whether
statute
expresses
affirmative
showing
congressional
intent
permit
recourse
tucker
act
remedy
whether
congress
statute
withdrawn
tucker
act
grant
jurisdiction
claims
hear
suit
involving
statute
founded
upon
constitution
regional
rail
reorganization
act
cases
emphasis
original
nowhere
fifra
legislative
history
discussion
interaction
fifra
tucker
act
since
tucker
act
grants
claims
jurisdiction
render
judgment
upon
claim
founded
upon
constitution
infer
withdrawal
jurisdiction
respect
takings
fifra
structure
statute
legislative
history
withdrawal
jurisdiction
amount
partial
repeal
tucker
act
recognized
however
repeals
implication
disfavored
regional
rail
reorganization
act
cases
see
amell
mercantile
national
bank
langdeau
borden
monsanto
argues
fifra
provision
original
submitter
data
fails
participate
procedure
reaching
agreement
arbitration
proceeding
fails
comply
terms
agreement
arbitration
decision
shall
forfeit
right
compensation
use
data
support
application
ii
indicates
congress
intent
tucker
act
remedy
two
statutes
capable
duty
courts
absent
clearly
expressed
congressional
intention
contrary
regard
effective
regional
rail
reorganization
act
cases
quoting
morton
mancari
contrary
monsanto
claim
entirely
possible
tucker
act
fifra
better
interpretation
therefore
fifra
language
forfeiture
gives
force
tucker
act
fifra
provision
read
fifra
implementing
exhaustion
requirement
precondition
tucker
act
claim
fifra
withdraw
possibility
tucker
act
remedy
merely
requires
claimant
first
seek
satisfaction
statutory
procedure
cf
regional
rail
reorganization
act
cases
viewing
tucker
act
remedy
covering
shortfall
statutory
remedy
compensation
respect
data
disclosure
general
public
fifra
provides
compensation
whatsoever
thus
monsanto
argument
congress
intended
compensation
scheme
provided
fifra
exclusive
relevance
provisions
congress
fifra
address
liability
government
pay
compensation
taking
occur
congress
failure
specifically
mention
provide
recourse
government
may
reflect
congressional
belief
use
data
epa
ways
authorized
fifra
effects
fifth
amendment
taking
may
reflect
congress
assumption
general
grant
jurisdiction
tucker
act
provide
necessary
remedy
taking
may
occur
event
failure
construed
reflect
unambiguous
intention
withdraw
tucker
act
remedy
hether
intended
taking
claim
fifra
one
founded
upon
constitution
thus
remediable
tucker
act
regional
rail
reorganization
act
cases
therefore
operation
provisions
fifra
effect
taking
property
belonging
monsanto
adequate
remedy
taking
exists
tucker
act
district
erred
enjoining
taking
vii
hold
tucker
act
available
remedy
uncompensated
taking
monsanto
may
suffer
result
operation
challenged
provisions
fifra
conclude
monsanto
challenges
constitutionality
arbitration
compensation
scheme
ripe
resolution
availability
tucker
act
monsanto
ability
obtain
compensation
depend
solely
validity
statutory
compensation
scheme
operation
arbitration
procedure
affects
monsanto
ability
vindicate
statutory
right
obtain
compensation
subsequent
applicant
whose
registration
application
relies
data
originally
submitted
monsanto
ability
vindicate
constitutional
right
compensation
monsanto
allege
establish
injured
actual
arbitration
statute
district
acknowledged
monsanto
received
several
offers
compensation
applicants
registration
find
epa
considered
monsanto
data
considering
another
application
monsanto
subsequent
applicant
may
negotiate
reach
agreement
concerning
outstanding
offer
reach
agreement
controversy
must
go
arbitration
epa
considered
data
submitted
monsanto
evaluating
another
application
arbitrator
made
award
monsanto
claims
respect
constitutionality
arbitration
scheme
become
ripe
see
duke
power
carolina
environmental
study
group
regional
rail
reorganization
act
cases
viii
find
constitutional
infirmity
challenged
provisions
fifra
operation
provisions
may
effect
taking
respect
certain
health
safety
environmental
data
constituting
trade
secrets
state
law
designated
monsanto
trade
secrets
upon
submission
epa
october
september
whatever
taking
may
occur
one
public
use
tucker
act
remedy
available
provide
monsanto
compensation
taking
occurred
proper
forum
monsanto
claim
claims
monsanto
challenges
constitutionality
arbitration
procedure
yet
ripe
review
judgment
district
therefore
vacated
case
remanded
proceedings
consistent
opinion
ordered
footnotes
first
federal
legislation
area
insecticide
act
stat
made
unlawful
manufacture
sell
insecticides
adulterated
misbranded
legislation
repealed
replaced
fifra
stat
undertaken
regulate
pesticide
use
federal
legislation
many
continued
federal
legislation
enacted
council
state
governments
recommended
adoption
model
state
statute
uniform
state
insecticide
fungicide
rodenticide
act
see
appellant
concedes
however
matter
practice
department
agriculture
publicly
disclose
health
safety
information
brief
appellant
section
stat
reads
relevant
part
respect
pesticides
containing
active
ingredients
initially
registered
act
september
data
submitted
support
application
original
registration
pesticide
application
amendment
adding
new
use
registration
pertain
solely
new
use
shall
without
written
permission
original
data
submitter
considered
administrator
support
application
another
person
period
ten
years
following
date
administrator
first
registers
pesticide
ii
except
otherwise
provided
subparagraph
paragraph
respect
data
submitted
december
applicant
registrant
support
application
registration
experimental
use
permit
amendment
adding
new
use
existing
registration
support
maintain
effect
existing
registration
reregistration
administrator
may
without
permission
original
data
submitter
consider
item
data
support
application
person
within
period
following
date
data
originally
submitted
applicant
made
offer
compensate
original
data
submitter
submitted
offer
administrator
accompanied
evidence
delivery
original
data
submitter
offer
terms
amount
compensation
may
fixed
agreement
original
data
submitter
applicant
failing
agreement
binding
arbitration
subparagraph
end
ninety
days
date
delivery
original
data
submitter
offer
compensate
original
data
submitter
applicant
neither
agreed
amount
terms
compensation
procedure
reaching
agreement
amount
terms
compensation
either
person
may
initiate
binding
arbitration
proceedings
requesting
federal
mediation
conciliation
service
appoint
arbitrator
roster
arbitrators
maintained
service
findings
determination
arbitrator
shall
final
conclusive
official
shall
power
jurisdiction
review
findings
determination
except
fraud
misrepresentation
misconduct
one
parties
arbitration
arbitrator
verified
complaint
supporting
affidavits
attesting
specific
instances
fraud
misrepresentation
misconduct
administrator
determines
original
data
submitter
failed
participate
procedure
reaching
agreement
arbitration
proceeding
required
subparagraph
failed
comply
terms
agreement
arbitration
decision
concerning
compensation
subparagraph
original
data
submitter
shall
forfeit
right
compensation
use
data
support
application
registration
action
administrator
shall
delayed
pending
fixing
compensation
iii
expiration
period
exclusive
use
period
compensation
required
use
item
data
subparagraphs
ii
paragraph
administrator
may
consider
item
data
support
application
applicant
without
permission
original
data
submitter
without
offer
received
compensate
original
data
submitter
use
item
data
section
stat
reads
relevant
part
information
concerning
objectives
methodology
results
significance
test
experiment
performed
registered
previously
registered
pesticide
separate
ingredients
impurities
degradation
products
information
concerning
effects
pesticide
organism
behavior
pesticide
environment
including
limited
data
safety
fish
wildlife
humans
mammals
plants
animals
soil
studies
persistence
translocation
fate
environment
metabolism
shall
available
disclosure
public
provided
use
data
registration
purpose
shall
governed
section
act
provided
paragraph
authorize
disclosure
information
discloses
manufacturing
quality
control
processes
discloses
details
methods
testing
detecting
measuring
quantity
deliberately
added
inert
ingredients
pesticide
discloses
identity
percentage
quantity
deliberately
added
inert
ingredient
pesticide
information
concerning
production
distribution
sale
inventories
pesticide
otherwise
entitled
confidential
treatment
subsection
section
may
publicly
disclosed
connection
public
proceeding
determine
whether
pesticide
ingredient
pesticide
causes
unreasonable
adverse
effects
health
environment
administrator
determines
disclosure
necessary
public
interest
study
office
pesticide
programs
epa
showed
approximately
firms
registered
produce
products
estimated
largest
firms
account
country
pesticide
production
correspondingly
small
number
new
pesticides
marketed
year
new
pesticides
introduced
see
goring
costs
commercializing
pesticides
international
conference
entomology
reprinted
hearings
extension
federal
insecticide
fungicide
rodenticide
act
subcommittee
agricultural
research
general
legislation
senate
committee
agriculture
nutrition
forestry
district
judgment
case
conflict
holdings
federal
courts
see
petrolite
environmental
protection
agency
supp
dc
mobay
chemical
costle
supp
supp
wd
aff
sub
nom
mobay
chemical
gorsuch
cert
denied
chevron
chemical
costle
supp
del
aff
cert
denied
course
necessary
congress
recognize
data
issue
property
order
data
protected
taking
clause
mention
legislative
history
merely
one
illustration
general
perception
nature
trade
secrets
contrary
epa
contention
brief
appellant
justice
holmes
dictum
du
pont
de
nemours
powder
masland
undermine
holding
trade
secret
property
protected
fifth
amendment
taking
clause
masland
arose
dispute
disclosure
trade
secrets
preparation
trial
opinion
justice
stated
case
considered
presenting
conflict
right
property
right
make
full
defence
said
disclosure
forbidden
one
denies
trade
secret
merits
defence
adjudged
chance
heard
prove
case
approach
question
somewhat
differently
word
property
applied
trade
secrets
unanalyzed
expression
certain
secondary
consequences
primary
fact
law
makes
rudimentary
requirements
good
faith
whether
plaintiffs
valuable
secret
defendant
knows
facts
whatever
special
confidence
accepted
property
may
denied
confidence
therefore
starting
point
present
matter
property
due
process
law
defendant
stood
confidential
relations
plaintiffs
federal
pesticide
act
approved
september
stat
new
provisions
applied
full
force
data
submitted
date
market
monsanto
pesticide
products
international
one
monsanto
decide
forgo
registration
sell
pesticide
foreign
markets
presumably
situations
deems
data
protected
disclosure
valuable
right
sell
amendments
fifra
became
effective
close
business
day
october
stat
trade
secrets
act
prohibits
government
employee
publish
ing
divulg
ing
disclos
ing
mak
ing
known
confidential
information
received
official
capacity
considering
data
one
applicant
connection
application
another
epa
violate
prohibitions
district
found
period
usda
administered
fifra
also
policy
data
developed
submitted
companies
monsanto
used
support
registration
another
product
without
permission
data
submitter
monsanto
acting
administrator
environmental
protection
agency
supp
ed
mo
emphasis
original
district
apparently
based
finding
testimony
two
former
directors
pesticide
regulation
division
testified
knew
instance
data
submitted
one
applicant
subsequently
considered
evaluating
another
application
ibid
finding
marked
conflict
statement
national
agricultural
chemicals
association
presented
senate
subcommittee
advocated
amendments
fifra
contain
provision
present
law
registration
information
submitted
administrator
routinely
made
available
public
inspection
information
however
matter
practice
without
statutory
authority
considered
administrator
support
registration
similar
product
another
registrant
federal
environmental
pesticide
control
act
hearings
subcommittee
agricultural
research
general
legislation
senate
committee
agriculture
forestry
pt
although
evidence
district
finding
seems
overwhelming
need
determine
finding
clearly
erroneous
order
find
submitter
reasonable
expectation
department
epa
use
data
submitted
evaluating
application
another
district
find
policy
department
publicly
known
time
explicit
guarantee
exclusive
use
emphasize
value
trade
secret
lies
competitive
advantage
gives
owner
competitors
thus
fact
operation
provisions
allow
competitor
register
easily
product
use
disclosed
data
improve
technology
may
constitute
taking
however
public
disclosure
data
reveals
example
harmful
side
effects
submitter
product
causes
submitter
suffer
decline
potential
profits
sales
product
decline
profits
stems
decrease
value
pesticide
consumers
rather
destruction
edge
submitter
competitors
constitute
taking
trade
secret
record
contains
findings
respect
value
data
issue
arbitration
proceeding
yet
held
determine
amount
recovery
paid
subsequent
applicant
monsanto
preclude
possibility
arbitration
award
sufficient
provide
monsanto
compensation
thus
nullifying
claim
government
taking
epa
uses
monsanto
data
considering
another
application
statutory
arbitration
scheme
course
provides
compensation
cases
data
considered
connection
subsequent
application
cases
disclosure
data
amendments
fifra
purported
carry
backward
protections
data
consideration
data
disclosure
submissions
data
made
january
stat
relevant
consideration
purposes
nature
expectations
submitter
time
data
submitted
therefore
extend
ruling
possible
taking
data
submitted
prior
october
monsanto
argues
epa
implication
congress
misapprehended
true
barriers
entry
pesticide
industry
challenged
provisions
law
create
rather
reduce
barriers
entry
brief
appellee
economic
arguments
better
directed
congress
proper
inquiry
whether
provisions
fact
accomplish
stated
objectives
review
limited
determining
purpose
legitimate
congress
rationally
believed
provisions
promote
objective
midkiff
ante
western
southern
life
ins
state
bd
equalization
taking
private
property
occur
result
epa
disclosure
consideration
data
submitted
monsanto
october
september
course
duly
authorized
fifra
amended
tucker
act
reads
relevant
part
claims
shall
jurisdiction
render
judgment
upon
claim
founded
either
upon
constitution
act
congress
regulation
executive
department
upon
express
implied
contract
liquidated
unliquidated
damages
cases
sounding
tort
exhaustion
statutory
remedy
necessary
determine
extent
taking
occurred
extent
operation
statute
provides
compensation
taking
occurred
original
submitter
data
claim
government
emphasize
nothing
opinion
prohibits
epa
consideration
disclosure
manner
authorized
fifra
data
submitted
monsanto
decision
merely
holds
respect
certain
limited
class
data
submitted
monsanto
epa
epa
actions
provisions
statute
may
give
monsanto
claim
compensation
justice
concurring
part
dissenting
part
join
opinion
except
part
conclusion
ante
epa
consideration
disclosure
data
submitted
monsanto
agency
prior
october
effect
taking
view
public
disclosure
data
effect
taking
consideration
information
within
epa
connection
license
applications
submitted
monsanto
believe
remand
district
factual
findings
concerning
monsanto
expectations
regarding
interagency
uses
trade
secret
information
prior
important
distinguish
outset
public
disclosure
trade
secrets
use
secrets
entirely
within
epa
internal
use
may
undermine
monsanto
competitive
position
within
leaves
monsanto
position
foreign
markets
undisturbed
notes
ante
likely
impact
foreign
market
position
one
monsanto
weigh
deciding
whether
submit
trade
secrets
epa
thus
submission
trade
secrets
epa
implicitly
consented
use
information
within
agency
necessarily
one
implicitly
consented
public
disclosure
seems
quite
clear
indeed
scarcely
disputes
public
disclosure
trade
secrets
submitted
federal
government
neither
permitted
law
customary
agency
practice
expected
applicants
pesticide
registrations
correctly
notes
trade
secrets
act
flatly
proscribed
disclosures
district
expressly
found
government
policy
data
developed
submitted
companies
monsanto
maintained
confidentially
administrative
agency
disclosed
without
permission
data
submitter
monsanto
acting
administrator
epa
supp
finally
ante
quotes
statement
national
agricultural
chemicals
association
registration
information
submitted
administrator
routinely
made
available
public
inspection
hard
imagine
applicant
pesticide
license
circumstances
formed
firm
expectation
trade
secrets
submitted
connection
pesticide
registration
disclosed
public
analysis
question
appears
single
sentence
industry
long
focus
great
public
concern
significant
government
regulation
reasonable
expectation
government
later
find
public
disclosure
trade
secrets
public
interest
ante
frankly
puzzled
read
statement
broader
context
otherwise
convincing
opinion
degree
government
regulation
determines
reasonableness
expectation
confidentiality
monsanto
little
reason
expect
confidentiality
since
amendments
deregulatory
intent
effect
entirely
fails
explain
nondisclosure
provision
act
stat
created
greater
expectation
confidentiality
trade
secrets
act
section
prohibited
epa
disclosing
trade
secrets
commercial
financial
information
penalty
disclosure
prescribed
unless
disclosure
intent
defraud
trade
secrets
act
prohibited
still
prohibits
government
disclosure
trade
secrets
commercial
financial
information
revealed
course
official
duties
pain
substantial
criminal
sanctions
acknowledges
prohibition
always
extended
formal
official
agency
action
chrysler
brown
seems
criminal
sanctions
trade
secrets
act
therefore
created
least
strong
expectation
privacy
precatory
language
created
tacit
analysis
seems
expectation
confidentiality
grounded
statutory
nondisclosure
provision
situated
close
physical
proximity
pages
code
provisions
pursuant
information
submitted
government
part
see
reason
congress
able
give
effective
protection
trade
secrets
submitted
federal
government
means
single
overarching
trade
secrets
provision
routinely
assume
wrongdoers
put
notice
entire
contents
code
though
likelihood
never
owned
copy
opened
single
page
seems
strange
assume
hand
company
like
monsanto
well
served
lawyers
undoubtedly
read
code
build
expectation
privacy
pesticide
trade
secrets
assurance
confidentiality
appeared
title
question
interagency
use
trade
secrets
difficult
trade
secrets
act
likely
extend
uses
district
found
prior
october
two
competitors
registrations
granted
basis
data
submitted
monsanto
monsanto
knowledge
either
registrations
prior
granted
district
also
found
agency
policy
data
developed
submitted
companies
monsanto
used
support
registration
another
product
without
permission
data
submitter
ibid
however
concludes
basis
two
cited
fragments
evidence
evidence
district
finding
seems
overwhelming
ante
nevertheless
wisely
declines
label
district
findings
fact
matter
clearly
erroneous
instead
notes
district
find
policy
department
agriculture
publicly
known
time
explicit
guarantee
exclusive
use
ibid
begs
exactly
right
question
firmly
declines
answer
simply
evidence
practice
using
data
submitted
one
company
consideration
application
subsequent
applicant
widespread
well
known
ante
omitted
without
ado
declares
respect
data
monsanto
reasonable
expectation
epa
use
data
exclusively
purpose
considering
monsanto
application
connection
data
submitted
ante
one
thing
quite
clear
extent
monsanto
expectations
whether
reasonable
otherwise
heavily
factual
question
fairly
clear
district
found
expectations
existed
matter
fact
reasonable
matter
law
factual
findings
district
precise
question
explicit
might
appropriate
disposition
remand
district
factfinding
course
follow
respect
interagency
use
trade
secrets
submitted
monsanto