1 Pat. L. Fundamentals § 2:14 (2d ed.) by John Gladstone Mills III, Donald C. Reiley III, Robert Clare Highley.
§ 2:14. Personal use is as much an infringement as commercial use
"It is commonly but erroneously believed that only commercial exploitation constitutes infringement and that making and using a patented invention for one's own personal use does not constitute a legally actionable wrong."
This is based on standard rules of statutory interpretation of:
35 U.S.C.A. § 271 Infringement of patent
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent. ...
The leading case explaining how copyright is not
like patents is:
Lawrence v. Dana, 15 Fed. Cas. 26, 60 (No. 8136) (C.C.D. Mass. 1869).
But, courts now use copyright standards for patents to reduce damages to below the level to enforce.
Shelcore, Inc. v. Durham Industries, Inc., 745 F.2d 621, 630, 223 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 584, 591, 16 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1270 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
My IANAL interpretation is:
1) It's illegal to grow simcoe without a license.
2) But if you don't sell the simcoe, your maximum loss is their loss of profits (ignoring cost to defend) which would equal less than the cost to buy the same amount of simcoe, $2.69ish/ounce.