From ScotusBlog's opinion recap:
As the case came to the Court, the parties agree that ordinarily it violates a patent to make or use the patented invention without the owner’s consent (often granted in the form of a license). The parties also agree on the major doctrinal exception, the doctrine of “exhaustion,” which holds that a patent holder’s rights in a particular patented object are largely “exhausted” by an authorized sale of that object: the purchaser has a free right to use and resell the purchased copy of the invention.
Bowman argues that the right to “use” the seed that he purchased necessarily included the right to plant the seed and its progeny – that is, after all, the natural use of seed. The Court rejected the argument out of hand. “If the purchaser of [the sold] article could make and sell endless copies, the patent would effectively protect the invention for just a single sale.”
The Court presumably was influenced by the severe consequences for Monsanto (and others like it). The briefs of Monsanto and its amici had emphasized the high up-front costs of developing genetically engineered products like the Roundup Ready seed. The Court commented:
Were the matter otherwise, Monsanto’s patent would provide scant benefit. After inventing the Roundup Ready trait, Monsanto would, to be sure, receive its reward for the first seeds it sells. But in short order, other seed companies could reproduce the product and market it to growers, thus depriving Monsanto of its monopoly.