under a utility patent,” id. at 142, 122 S.Ct. 593, as there is in the PVPA, see 7 U.S.C. § 2543 (2000), yet it held nonetheless that the two statutory schemes could “mutually coexist,” J.E.M. AG Supply, 534 U.S. at 143, 122 S.Ct. 593 (internal quotation marks omitted). In light of the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Congress’s intent, we conclude that Congress did not intend to prohibit owners of utility patents from enforcing seed-saving prohibitions in their licenses. VIII Finally, McFarling argues that the district court erred in holding that the 120 multiplier on the technology fee in the Technology Agreement was a valid and enforceable liquidated damages clause under Missouri law. Upon independent review, see Robert Blond Meat Co. v. Eisenberg, 273 S.W.2d 297, 299 (Mo.1954) (<HOLDING>), we agree with McFarling that the liquidated
holding that liquidated damages under the adea are intended to punish and deter while contrasting them to the legislative purpose of liquidated damages under the fsla holding that because liquidated damages under the adea are punitive in nature a jurys award of state punitive damages and adea liquidated damages constitutes a double recovery and therefore reducing the total recovery by the amount of the liquidated damages award holding it is a question of fact recognizing a 44 percent liquidated damages clause as routine and reasonable holding that the validity of a liquidated damages clause is a question of law and reviewing it without deference