(plaintiff divested itself of certain soybean assets in 2003, granting licenses for its soybean technology to two different seed development companies; in 2007, one licensee and defendant entered into an agreement to develop and sell E3, a triple stack soybean event conferring tolerance in soybeans to three different herbicides; pursuant to the agreement, the licensee granted a sublicense to defendant, but the licensee retained ownership of E3; plaintiff filed an action against defendant, alleging that defendant’s work with E3 was infringing plaintiff’s intellectual property; plaintiff argued that the licensee had no authority to sublicense commercialization rights; in granting summary judgment to defendant, the court ruled that the plain and ordinary language of the licensing agreement did not, as plaintiff alleged, strip the licensee of commercialization rights granted to the other licensee, instead, the agreement provided that those rights would be shared by the two licensees; as such, the licensee had the authority to sublicense full commercialization rights to defendant).