The law of patents has long struggled with the status of intent in determining liability for infringement. This struggle has recently been given a sharper edge by the emergence of biotechnological products with the inherent ability of auto-dispersal and regeneration. The question thus is whether a person on whose backyard a patented genetic organism has grown without the active intervention of that person is liable in infringement to the patentee of that organism. This article examines the ramifications of the legal conundrum and argues that upon a proper construction of the theories of liability in patent law, intent to infringe is necessarily crucial if the nature of the subject-matter of the patent makes it unjust and absurd to argue otherwise.