I read the full details of a Monsanto-vs-farmer court case not that long ago that sounded a lot like the one you describe. If we're talking about the same case

I read the full details of a Monsanto-vs-farmer court case not that long ago that sounded a lot like the one you describe. If we're talking about the same case, the missing part of the story is that the farmers knew they had Monsanto seeds mixed in to their crop and then intentionally isolated those seeds and replanted only those seeds for the next year. Specifically, they sprayed with pesticides that kill "organic" crops but that Monsanto crops are engineered to be immune to, for the purpose of having genetically-engineered seeds for the next season without paying the required licensing fee. Maybe it's not the same case. But it's worth being aware that people do present their side of a case in the most positive light, even when they're clearly in the wrong when all of the evidence is revealed. (This could apply to either side in this dispute, FWIW.)