▁constit utes ▁in fr ing ing ▁use ▁of ▁the ▁pat ented ▁gen es ▁and ▁cells . ▁ ▁Poss ession ▁M ons anto ▁Canada ▁Inc . ▁v . ▁Sch me iser ▁established ▁that ▁possession ▁may ▁be ▁sufficient ▁for ▁in fr ing ement ▁if ▁some ▁value ▁is ▁derived ▁from ▁the ▁act ▁of ▁possession . ▁It ▁was ▁found ▁that ▁possession ▁can ▁grant ▁an ▁" ins urance ▁value " ▁to ▁the ▁poss essor . ▁Ex amples ▁include ▁emer gency ▁equipment ▁or ▁back ups ▁in ▁case ▁of ▁failure . ▁M ons anto ▁also ▁found ▁that ▁the ▁def endant ' s ▁use ▁of ▁a ▁gen et ically ▁modified ▁c rop ▁was ▁in fr ing ing ▁even ▁though ▁the ▁def endant ▁did ▁not ▁use ▁the ▁gen etic ▁benefit ▁( a ▁resistance ▁to ▁a ▁p estic ide ) ▁- ▁it ▁was ▁sufficient ▁to ▁show ▁that ▁the ▁def endant ▁had ▁a ▁benefit ▁in ▁case ▁it ▁became ▁necessary ▁to ▁take ▁advantage ▁of ▁the ▁benefit . ▁The ▁benefit ▁received ▁by ▁the ▁def endant ▁in ▁cases ▁of ▁possession ▁correspond ▁to ▁a ▁dep riv ation ▁of ▁the ▁pat ent ▁holder ' s ▁full ▁enjoy ment ▁of ▁the ▁mon opol y ▁and ▁is ▁thus ▁an ▁in fr ing ement ▁of ▁the ▁pat ent . ▁ ▁In ▁general , ▁a ▁def endant ' s ▁intention ▁is ▁not ▁relevant ▁in ▁establish ing ▁an ▁in fr ing ement ; ▁however , ▁intent ▁does ▁become ▁important ▁when ▁in fr ing ement ▁is ▁alleg ed ▁through ▁possession . ▁There ▁must ▁be ▁an ▁intent ▁to ▁use ▁the ▁pat ented ▁article ▁for ▁there ▁to